User talk:GraemeLeggett/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

M4 Sherman, revert warring

Hello,

The current article M4 Sherman have been recently edit warring by LeuCeaMia. - This is against three-revert rule (3RR). He trying to overlap the valid statement by the context, which is 1) not necessary nor essential and 2) with a reasonable reading comprehension, the "superiority" leads to the long-barrelled gun as Andy Dingley recognized correctly. Could you please help to fullfil a report?

Other articles been also under edit warring by LeuCeaMia, see contributions.

Sincere regards, Benjamin (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I've started the talk discussion to explain the shortcommings of the Allied opponents against the "Mark IV Special", since LeuCeaMia keep edit warring. Sincere regards, Benjamin (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm done, LeuCeaMia keep violating the three-revert rule (3RR) and the Wiki netiquette of co-educational behavior. I've invited LeuCeaMia into talk to discuss the issue, he/she keep edit warring, without reasoning, timestamp: 14:56, 10 November 2014‎. Benjamin (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

If they don't want to engage, there's not a great deal to be done to bring them to the table. Thought there is dispute resolution GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 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 my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | 255,000-300,000 local troops and military officers || 1941 (before [[World War II]] and the Japanese invasion || Civilian Men ||

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• the British nor US forces had brought heavy tanks into service. A Wa Pruef 1 report of October 1944]], estimated that - when angled at 30 degrees - the Tiger Ausf B frontal aspect was impervious to

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits of page <wiki/No._255_Squadron_RAF>

Please would you visit the Talk page relating to No.255 Squadron and there (a) constructively join in the discussion about "splitting", also (b) set out your connection (if any) with the squadron. The result of a lot of difficult research work done by descendants of squadron members has, within the last few days, been deleted without prior discussion. 255 Historian (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

ADDED: Please contact me privately, preferably by e-mail, using the contact information for No.255 Squadron in No._255_Squadron_RAF#External_links item "Squadron history (and more) on RafWeb". 255 Historian (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

As its about a Wikipedia article, I'd prefer to keep all discussions with editors regarding it on Wikipedia pages (whether that be the article talkpage, or related projects such as the Aviation wikiproject or Military history wikiproject). GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Boeing 797 hoax reg

Hi GraemeLeggett

Please visit the talk page of Boeing X-48 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boeing_X-48) to see the notability of the Boeing 797 hoax.

Wikipedia is a very important source of information for people, today. Removing tiny bits of information does not help educate people. At the time of creating that section, I visited wikipedia searching for info on the Boeing 797. failing to find anything, i resorted to the rest of the net. at the end, i managed to collate quite a bit of info including the exact issue from which the image was sourced.

the whole point of wikipedia is to educate people, not to hide info. for your info, this design is based on BWB-450 on which the X-48A and subsequently B & C are based. in short, this render was inspired from an actual physical concept model preceding X-48. also fyi, the BWB-450 was supposed to be a 450 passenger aircraft BWB concept but when the design was carried over to X-48, it was decided to scrap the passenger part for the time being with more focus on military applications like air-refuelling.

officially, there is no talk by boeing or nasa to bring in such planes to the commercial sector in the imminent future. and this is where the 797 hoax has to be mentioned and cleared.

I am open to further discussion but as a hoax, it is still quite notable. I would like to revert this by the weekend, if possible.

Perhaps we can arrange a discussion on the Talk page of Blended Wing Body to reword the info a bit - however, it is important that people are educated about this hoax. We want wikipedia to be a source of reliable knowledge, right? If nothing is available here, the average person will resort to a questionable blog and think the info there is correct.

Till the date a Boeing 797 is truly released & a wiki page created for it, this section needs a home under the Blended Wing Body page. --Krishvanth (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Comet tank

Now that you've reverted my change I realise what you intended originally - and you are completely correct. Sorry for making you do the edit twice! Cheers - QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Nothing to worry about. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Landing Ship, Infantry

Dear Graeme, Thanks for your improvements to the LSI article (an article I have wished to alter for some time now). I hope to make additional edits over the next couple of days. I'd like to get a photo of HMS Glengyle for the infobox (and get it actually inside), as this was the first of the LSIs. I don't know if others are interested in paying more attention to this article as I go in order to add their knowledge, but that might be useful and efficient. I will probably move the information around to arrange it in a more logical manner as I go. Best regards, AmesJussellR (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

US military measurements

M4 Tractor brings up two questions to me. 1): In the US we use “ton”, not “short ton”, which means nothing here. We also don’t abbreviate “ton” often. Is it possible to convert showing “X tons(Xkg)”? That would be useful in the text. 2): In the US “inches” are used on vehicle dimensions. I have had "meter" conversions changed to "cm". Where is the line? And shouldn’t it be two places behind the decimal? Isn’t there a 10 in there? Maybe it's just common use? Thank you for your time.Sammy D III (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

If you prefer tons to lb, you'll have to spell out short tons, otherwise the conversions don't work properly (though US ship displacement are already in long tons) I'll tweak the displayed precision for metres, though without knowing whether one includes the towing eye or the headlamp grille measuring the length of a vehicle means an inch either way is -in reality- neither here nor there. As to use of cm, I figure that depends on what you're measuring and precision. Talking about the length of something being 4 to 6 inches, giving it as 10 to 20 cm seems suitably precise, anything over a couple of foot, metres makes more sense to me. Though heights of people are often in cm, eg the labels in children's clothing.GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

In general, I'll keep manually converting, tons are only used for load ratings, anyway. If I go over a meter, I'll switch. I wasn't sure, we stay with inches, no feet or yards, and I have been changed back to cm. If a metric person is content with one decimal, it looks better to me. If they want it closer, they can convert it themselves. Thank you for your time. Sammy D III (talk) 22:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The Manual of style Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Unit_conversions says "Converted quantity values should use a level of precision similar to that of the source quantity value".GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry that I didn't do my basic homework. Metric vehicles (M-B among others) use "mm.", even for length. Since these are conversions for anybody, I'm going to stick with "cm.", that's close enough. I'm sorry to take your time, thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

a quick scan of some of vehicles in Template:WWIIAmericanAFVs, suggests metres to two decimal places a lot of the time, I just upped precision on DUKW. Some of them don't have alternate units at all, but are just in metres, km/h etc. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Bataillon d'Infanterie legere d'Outre-Mer thanks!

Just wanted to thank you more obviously for your recent edit to the new article I created yesterday, Bataillon d'Infanterie legere d'Outre-Mer. It's so nice to see other milhist editors checking out the article and making improvements to it already. Cheers! Azx2 19:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

User:MatteoNL97

I have opened a new section on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page regarding User:MatteoNL97 rewriting various firearm lists and redefining terms to match his point of view. If you would like to comment on this matter, please do so.--RAF910 (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Remagen

I see you're working on Battle of Remagen while I'm tinkering with image placement, hopefully I didn't cause you any edit conflicts. I'm done for now. (Hohum ^@) 21:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

There weren't any. But thanks for checking I was OK.GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 11 December

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

• On the List of submachine guns page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

M14 Half-track

Thank you for helping my article! I am just telling you that you forgot to reference Zaloga in the reference section. Don't worry, I just fixed it. I hope this won't start an edit conflict. This is just a reminder. Tomandjerry211 (talk) 18:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry

To you and yours

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

A good 2015 to you and yours!

Hope it's a good one for you! Irondome (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Finnish ship class navigation box

Though single ships are included in the Template:WWIIFINShips navigation box, many most of the other navigation boxes do as well, and no distinction is made in their titles, so I think it should remain as I changed it. Dziban303 (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the Commando_Jeep page

Regarding your changes to theCommando_Jeep page, I'd ask that you hold off on cleaning up the hucksters' language before substantial factual edit: the Madison Ave cant is a useful clue that the substance is questionable and unreliable. That's a small price for some ugly colloquialisms.Anmccaff (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Direct Fly sro

Thanks for your edit on this page. Since you are on-line today would you care to review the CSD nom on that same article? - Ahunt (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

If I could think of a good reason to challenge it I would. Any chance of finding out how many ArGo have been built?GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Working on that. Thanks for looking at it anyway. - Ahunt (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

specs

Only added, did not alter anything! Is there something that doesn't work?--Petebutt (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I've voiced my concerns on the project page. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

New redirect discussion for “The Doctor”

Hi. Since you participated in the discussion at WT:Wikiproject Doctor Who, you may wish to post at Talk:Doctor#Proposed redirect. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Input needed on Allies Page

Thanks for your clarifications and input to the talk page. I wrote a message for you, which I am pasting below as well. Would be great of you could provide a response in order to avoid the stalemate of edit-wars and help the case move forward.

I agree with the edit of GraemeLeggett that indicates that the treaty is with Italy and that the status is Associated Power, because that is a correct TECHNICAL reading of the treaty. However, there are two problems with that insert 1) Concerning WW2 in Europe, the treaty with Italy was the first treaty to be signed by a broad scope of nations defined as "Allies and Associated powers", since the Potsdam Agreement of 1945 ending the war with Germany was signed only by USA, UK and Soviets. The last Treaty of San Francisco with Japan included 48 nations, many neutral states during the war e.g. Turkey, etc ..., and did not include countries that opposed Axis (Yugoslavia and Albania did not join that treaty). So the treaty with Italy is the most representative in terms of nations opposing Axis (reflecting the definition of Ally in the top of this article). 2) The other point to be discussed is: If we partition the term "Allies and Associated Powers", then naturally we should state "Which countries are Allies?" and "Which countries are Associated Powers"?. If we want to create that separation in the article, we should then systematically edit the text of states falling into those categories (We cannot leave that label only for one state). Please GraemeLegget, as the initiator of this classification, can you provide the list of Allies and Associated Powers? LupinoJacky (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to M4 Sherman may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• on top gave it a very high profile; and the unusual side-sponson mounted main gun, with limited [[Gun laying|traverse], could not be aimed across the other side of the tank.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Wurst Farm

Coming along quite nicely, don't you think?Keith-264 (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

There's little in this world that can't be improved with some attention. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

British Caledonian

Please stop continuously messing with other people's edits only because it doesn't strictly conform to this or the other protocol, and stop behaving as if you were the sole owner of this medium. Wikipedia is not a public authority; it is open to all users and should therefore not compel users to strictly adhere to all protocols. (Not everyone is from a military background and wishes to submit to a disciplinary regime as is common in armed forces.)

My background is of no relevance and Wikipedia has a defined style - the WP:MoS which covers formatting of references for the purposes of making the text more reader accessible. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikiwings

		Wikiwings
		For diligent improvements to British Caledonian. - Ahunt (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 16 March

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

• On the British United Airways page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Possible error on the M1 Combat Car article

Gday Graeme. I think there may have been an error introduced with the mark up of the convert template from this edit of yours: [1]. Unfortunately the infobox now says "(convert: unit mismatch)" as a result. I'd fix it myself but unfortunately I'm a bit of a numpty when it comes to the difference b/n short and long tons and all that so I'm not sure how. When you get a chance could you pls have another look? All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Flame War - forfeited VCs

Thanks for your assistance. I have included references and comments relating to the subject of forfeited VCs in the talk page to Frederick Corbett. They can be added to the article when things are calmer. Note that the flame war has spread to Valentine Bambrick. I think it is time for moderators to intervene and I am unsure who they are. Anthony Staunton (talk) 11:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Flag it up at the Milhist talk page - in as neutral a tone as possible - and name the articles affected or likely to be affected. Some of the Milhist participants have that worthy combination of sage heads on their shoulders and admin rights and if they spot anything amiss can intervene. The other thing is to do the equivalent of "going for a walk". Come back to the articles in a week or so and remove the unsourced assertion - it's quite possible the IP editor will have moved on to pastures new by then. Best thing though is to not let it get to you, and certainly not be as hasty or dogmatic as the other editor. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you have a pretty sage head yourself. I was bemused that the issue was raised only days after I had an article on the subject accepted for publication. It will be sometime before it appears in print so waiting a week or two is very sound advice. I have the eight forfeited VCs on my watch list so I will see if it spreads any further. Thanks for your suggestions. Anthony Staunton (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Green Mace an oscillating turret

The twin rotary magazines of the Green Mace allowing a very high rate of fire for as long as they were loaded, for me at least brings immediately to mind of the rotary magazines and autolader system of the oscillating turret as used in the AMX13 et al.--KTo288 (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 2 April

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

• On the Battle of Greece page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Recognition where it is due

We visited the west side Ludendorff bridge buildings with a few like-minded chaps in Oct 2013. Obviously, we checked basic facts from Wikipedia. Returning now to recheck some thigns - what do I see: a detailed and fleshed out article! A joy to read. I'll recommend my buddies to see the artice themselves. In short, this calls for....tada.....

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For tireless improvment on Battle of Remagen. Cheers, Rayshade (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

B-25 article

if you made a recent deletion to the B-25 article, be reminded that you did so improperly. Proper protocol requires that you tag a citation needed ( which is this case would not apply*) or discuss your concerns at the article talk page. I will restore the edit , this will give you the opportunity to follow proper protocol at the article talk page. I will not be checking back here for a response, deferring to the article talk page. * reference previously posted at the article talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B025:1FE8:94D1:40BA:9A79:BAA0 (talk) 11:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Improper revert of Twin mustang article

You made an improper and inncorect revert to the twin mustang article. you have made several other improper reverts. if these continue to occure you may be subject to distrubtive edits policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B027:8ACD:5D09:1E54:32B4:388D (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to note as the user has been blocked and not allowed to contribute any changes they make to articles can be reverted, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Verdun edit

Sadly someone else put that section in, I thought that it was far too purple. At least it doesn't stand out as much now.Keith-264 (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Feeling rough

Just noticed your notice; hope you're having a better day. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Not too bad, thanks for asking. In fact I think I ought to reduce the Defcon level.GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations, that's cheered me up too. Keith-264 (talk) 07:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Dragonfly

I see you have reverted the edit I made to Dragonfly. I made this edit because this source was brought to my attention. It states that there are five dragonfly species present in the Northern region of Alaska, which is entirely north of the Arctic Circle. With two conflicting sources, it seems better to remove the reference to Arctic Alaska entirely. Please undo your change, or add a suitably worded sentence that covers the information from the two contradictory sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Another editor sorted it out earlier today. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, thanks. I didn't want to get into an editing war. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Rocket engines branching.

I would like to have your opinion on my proposed branching of the Template:Rocket engines. Please see the Template TalkPage. Baldusi (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 7 July

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

• On the List of aircraft of the Pakistan Air Force page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

April–June 2015 MilHist reviewing award

		Military history reviewers' award
		For completing a review during April–June 2015, on behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Military history reviewers' award. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

August 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to HMCS Magnificent (CVL 21) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 2010. p.140</ref> In January 1945 the RCN negotiated the loan of two ships, {{HMS|Warrior|R31|2}} ([[1942 Design Light Fleet Carrier|''Colossus''-class) and ''Magnificent'' with the option to purchase

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Fury

Hi there, those removed from the list were potential competitors to the Fury in the 1919 transatlantic contest and comparable from that point of view, but like you say no resemblance to the Fury. Maybe a page on the contest would be better?Rstory (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

	Thanks!
	For salvaging an oversized white elephant of an article about an oversized white elephant... Andrew Gray (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Felixstowe F.5

Thanks for checking my edits on related development, do we have guidance on how far back/forward to track development as it is not always clear where to stop. In the F.5s case it seems to have influenced a great deal up to about WWII, but not directly to progressive developments. Is that a reasonable appraisal?80.229.34.113 (talk) 09:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

To avoid filling up the See also it makes sense (to me) to limit the related development to the most closely related "father" and "son" designs of the article's subject. The overall form of a biplane with a planning hull is common to most designs of the era so together with that the See also section could get quite full quite quickly. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

N.4

Thanks for checking my edits, only one thing in terms of balancing, if a design is listed on one page should it not be included vise versa? Regards80.229.34.113 (talk) 10:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Koolhoven

Well spotted links Graeme and a tragic loss of war.80.229.34.113 (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Fury

Copyright violation - fair enough, will take your word for it.80.229.34.113 (talk) 12:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Re: flitfire

Yes, I've noticed that anons are excluded from ever receiving thanks; implementing a dual-behavior functionality would be simple from a technical perspective (when one clicked 'thank' for a registered user the button could send an echo-notification whereas when one clicked the distinct 'thank' button -- hypothetically of course -- it could instead generate a normal message on their user_talk page). But this technical implementation was not merely never attempted, it seems to have never been thought of.  :-)     Almost as annoying, there is no technical reason that *I* should not be able to click 'thank' and send *you* such a notification. Yet, I see no such button to click,[2] since anons are not permitted to send them. I presume there was some small difficulty in making the 'thank' button appear in all edit-histories without bugs, and so it was tweaked to only appear in edit-histories when those were being viewed by logged-in-users. But I suppose it is also possible that, like the watchlist, it was a conscious decision to make registration "more appealing". Sigh.

  In any case, I do thank you, for thanking me, despite the additional legwork the mediawiki codebase required on your part. It is appreciated.  :-)     Now please, though, don't thank me for thanking you for thanking me, else I shall be forced to in turn thank you for thanking me for thanking you for thanking me, and soon we'll be at the noticeboards for disruption! p.s. I probably arrived too late for Cubgirl. And once again, technical limitations (the weird 'talkpage' system we use here for communicating) led to her getting more and more frustrated. If there was a live-help-chat in the sidebar of every wikipedian's article-viewing screen-layout, which allowed them to view and respond to their usertalk/notification/articleTalkPings/etc messages of various stripes, without learning about colons and tildes and "hidden" areas of the 'pedia, this might have all been avoided, or at least, nipped in the bud. In a way, though, wikipedia is like running the gauntlet: if you can stay cool under pressure, and survive the initial onslaught of WP:DONTTEMPLATETHEREGULARS-but-give-the-beginners-a-migraine, then probably you have what it takes to survive in the wiki-jungle. Cubgirl may have it, but she may decide the drama ('friction' as she calls it) is just too nuts. In some ways, one must be born-a-wikipedian, not made into one. I keep trying though.  ;-)     Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Coupe Deutsch de la Meurthe

Hi, thanks for your work in cleaning up the article after I uploaded it, esp the refs. When I created it, I had already spent much too much valuable time adapting it from the wp:fr version, which of course has minimal citations. At the last minute, I decided to at least provide some basic refs, without much analyis, that other editors could use, and as you have done. To my relief, the article has finally got its proper title. I also posted a request on the talk page of Henri Deutsch de la Meurthe for his name to be corrected to Henry - I welcome any contribution you might have there. No reply expected. PeterWD (talk) 13:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

18 Sep 2015

Thank you very much for stopping by at M19. I have some trucks that I can't do any more with: 5-tons, 6-tons, Mack EH, Macks in military, M54, M123/125, M425/426, M809, M939, US6, Engines (I think this is a list, I did it wrong). I only made a couple, a friend made some, the rest were already there. Nobody reads them, they are just rotting in the dark, I sort of want to see if anything happens. If you don't want them, I will not be insulted. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

If I see anything I can help with, I may. My sources are few on US trucks. If there's a British tie-in, then I might be more able to. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

)

September 2015

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Dictionary |accessdate = 30 June 2008}}</ref> also cited as '''''Fl'''ug'''a'''bwehr'''k'''anone'') and adopted in the English language use '''flak''', and the Russian term '''Protivovozdushnaya

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi and thanks from GSL

Thanks for your recent edit on Gun show loophole. I just had a question about it on the article's Talk Page before we keep it. Please feel free to state your response or leave it as is. You are welcome. Darknipples (talk) 04:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Text alignment in lists

Hi, re. your recent edit to Egyptian Air Force, I have posted a query at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#Text alignment in lists. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

That's fair. I may have to ask for several other similar edits to be "taken into consideration". GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not a problem. I have no set view either way, it's just that I have come across so many different ways to style our lists, that I think some consensus would be useful. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Audie Murphy plane crash

Hi GraemeLeggett. Thanks for you work improving Audie Murphy plane crash. Is the Self-published source referring to reference #5 and do you think I'm Barry Collman? Samf4u (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

No, it's tagging the list of Aero Commanders on google sites (currently cite no. 4). GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh,ok. During my search for the aircraft serial number and build date I discovered that list. I can assure you I had nothing to do with the creation of it. What can I do to fix this concern? Samf4u (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB explains the issue with self-published sources. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of British Airways Flight 2276

Hello! Your submission of British Airways Flight 2276 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 09:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for British Airways Flight 2276

Materialscientist (talk) 02:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• two [[Rolls-Royce RB.44 Tay|Rolls-Royce Tay turbojet]] engines and first flew in RAF markings as [[United Kingdom military aircraft serials|serial] ''VX217'' at Wisley on 15 March 1950.<ref name="
• item doesn't apply, like capacity, leave it blank. For additional lines, end your alt units with )</li> and start a new, fully formatted line with <li> -->

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Why thank you. Is it that time of year again... All the best to you and those you hold dear. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Felixtowe Fury

pointedly? poignantly? - pardon the spelling. The latter was intended, but either work - leave it to you adjust as you see fit. 81.149.141.199 (talk) 12:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Boeing 747

Why has my addition to the Boeing 747 page been reverted yet again? Boeing has confirmed that annual production will be reduced to below economic levels in a market that no longer wants four engine aircraft - production is about to die. I also note that the "The 747 is to be replaced by the Boeing Y3 (part of the Boeing Yellowstone Project) in the future" has been re-instated, even though it is clear that the aircraft will not be replaced.

10:42, 28 January 2016‎ Anments (talk | contribs)‎ . . (128,405 bytes) (+1,015)‎ . . (Undid revision 701956768 by Fnlayson (talk) 747 production is coming to an end. Please do not undo, as this looks personal!) (undo)

AS it stands, tt's too much for the lede. Discuss it on the 747 talkpage. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

UAV rework

Hello and many thanks for contributing in the UAV article. Dunno if you read my suggestions on the article talk page : moving overdetailed autonomy content to vehicular automation? I may also be willing to take in charge the citation reduction and the history graphical timeline. To you, how far is it from the GA Cup? Best regards Maxorazon (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Brunswick bombing in Second World War

Hi Graeme; I have no problem with an expansion whatsoever. Cheers, Grant | Talk 09:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

List of Doctor Who serials

Hi GraemeLeggett. I wanted to alert you about the List of Doctor Who serials discussion as I know you have been involved. Those of us left in the discussion feel we are coming to a consensus - we appear to have agreement on the direction of change - but the exact layout is still being worked on. However before we proceed wanted to get in touch with some more editors and commenters to make sure consensus has actually been reached - and if so hopefully gain further advice on the layout. Your input would be valued. Thank you. Dresken (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice, I will be sure to raise that. I was touching base with those who had already been involved first as a courtesy. I thought there was not much point going further if there was still issues amongst ourselves. I hope my tone has been neutral so far in this communication. I'm sorry if my actions or tone have come across as inappropriate. Dresken (talk) 09:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Your communication has been fine. I'm just aware how things can easily get heated on Wikipedia, and how it's better not to leave any causes around for (when emotion gets the better of reason) distractions from the business at hand into side issues of due process. And if communicating that I came across as critical, brusque or teaching grandparents to suck eggs, please blame it on one part me hurrying to respond, and one part using a mobile device rather than a proper keyboard. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 7 March

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

• On the Ada Lovelace page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

page Ravetz

Hello this is Andrea Saltelli I tried to improve the page of J. R. Ravetz could you please check? Best AS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saltean (talk • contribs) 20:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Tiger II spelling

I don't exactly have the space in edit summaries to explain to you why that article should be in British English. It seems clear to me that you have not properly read the Wikipedia MOS. It states very clearly that if the country uses British English, you use British English in the article, vice versa with American English. Pretty much the whole of Europe uses British English, in case you don't know; and that's certainly the case for 1940s Germany. I have never seen an official English text from Germany during that time period which uses American spellings.

You are now edit warring, which is against Wikipedia rules. If you'd like to discuss the issue further, please use the talk page. Additionally, please do note that if you have the intention of undoing my edit, please do so manually; I did a lot more than just simple spelling changes, including heavily editing the "See also" section. I can see that you're a highly active Wikipedia editor; that's great, but please make sure you remember the rules before undoing any future edits. Thanks.

Also, on another note, you may want to clean up your talk page a bit. Cheers, Weslam123 (talk) 10:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

TPz Fuchs

Hi there,

Quick thanks for your help with the Fuchs page. I was going to struggle and learn those figure conversions at some point!

Just slipped the 'Overarching project for a complete vehicle range from 1964' back in as I think it is needed to qualify things. There's no evidence I can find that TPz actually began in 1964, and despite even asking RMMV for a definitive date (they can't give one...), I can't track one down. Just 1964 would be wrong I'm sure, so adding 'Overarching project for a complete vehicle range from 1964' is I think about as good as we'll get for now.--UndateableOne (talk) 11:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Gommecourt

Thanks for taking the trouble to remedy my forgetfulness with ]]s. I'll use your edit of the weather table elsewhere because the format I have been using is one I copied years ago. I decided to put the most complete sections of the rewrite onto the page because having drawn attention to it, I didn't want anyone to waste their time with minor edits of the original article. As usual it was a fairly good effort given the limits of the writer's sources but nowhere near B class. My edit is still a work in progress as you can see. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

In respect of WWI articles on battles, I consider myself a mere sweeper-upper. But for some reason a 'double bold' font in table headers really sticks out to me. I look forward to reading the article when you've given it a going over.GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Even a sweeping brush can be wielded with style ;O)) User:Keith-264/sandbox4 the draft is here if you're interested. I hope to have it ready today but maybe not....Keith-264 (talk) 11:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• File:Tehran Snapshot 00593.jpg|Paykan pick-up]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Doctor Who (series 9)#Episode Groupings

I would like to invite you to contribute to a discussion on whether or not "The Girl Who Died" and "The Woman Who Lived" and "Heaven Sent" and "Hell Bent" are two-parters. Over the course of 3 weeks and 2 discussions, only 3 editors including myself have contributed, so it would be a great help if you could take the time to contribute. Fan4Life (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• its final form. It was defined from the beginning using E-M theory.<ref>Hammond, 2001, Chapter 6. {{pageneeded|date=July 2016</ref> The political struggle to get the F-16 procured, and the conflict

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• }}</ref> With an empty weight of 15,600&nbsp;lbs in the "E" version with added ground attack

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)