User talk:GraemeLeggett

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Hi! welcome to Wikipedia!

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:

nd guidelines|Policies and Guidelines]], Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop a note at Wikipedia:New user log.

-- Utcursch | Talk to me

Contents

[edit] St. Chamond copyvio

The St. Chamond article appears to be at least in large part a copyvio from here. I realise that it was origianlly cut and pasted by someone else, but as you're working on it, and clearly have much more expertise than I do, could you rework the offending text so that the article can stay? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:52, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tank template

Well, I see no need to add the line, but feel free to add it. The template is at Template:Tank and you simply have to add the line there. However, you should also correct the already-existing tables at the tank pages the template was used on previously. Halibutt 16:59, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Empty articles

Please don't create articles which contain only categories, interwiki or external links, or navigational boxes, but no other actual text. An article should have at least some text to be a valid article, otherwise it is a candidate for speedy deletion (see Criteria: Articles #3). The reason why such articles are discouraged is that they make red links appear blue like links to valid articles, but the user will be disappointed to find no meaningful text there except the metadata. At least a stub of actual text is needed. andy 16:10, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DD Tank

thanks for your work, 2 questions; is it definately DD Tank and not DD tank (capitalisation of t)?, i know i made it with capital but am having doubts and do you know where we can get some nice photos? thanks - Bluemoose 15:08, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wymondham

Wymondham - the "windham"/"windum" pronunciation is the only one used for Wymondham (the place in Norfolk) which is how it is referenced in the listing, which is why i made the mod. On a separate note how about adding a non IPA guide to the pronunciation of each word for those who can't read the IPA characters. GraemeLeggett 08:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

According to the pronunciation dictionaries I've consulted, the "windum" pronunciation is the local pronunciation, the "women-dom" pronunciation the one used by nonlocals. There's also a place in Leicestershire spelled the same but pronounced "wighmundum". At the top of the page there's a link to International Phonetic Alphabet for English for the benefit of those who haven't yet learned to read IPA characters. --Angr/comhrá 08:57, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Doctor Who serial articles

Appreciate your work on filling in the gaps, but could you take the time to get the format and links consistent with the other serial articles? I find myself having to come in and do clean up, which makes me feel like I'm stalking you or something. :) Little things like the right link to the Cast and Crew list, italicising serial titles and linking to the right page (Ark in Space, for example...). Good effort, all the same. --khaosworks 22:07, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Norwich

Hi Graeme - did you plan to add something to the Modern period section of the Norwich article? If not, I suggest we remove the title until someone comes up with the content to go with it ... AndrewMcQ 18:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi Graeme - I see you were the last person to reinstate the description of UEA as a "redbrick" university. Not so - when I was applying to universities in the mid 70s, "redbrick" was used to describe the municipal universities founded in the first half of the century, like Nottingham, Manchester, Birmingham, etc. The universities founded in the early 60s like UEA, Essex, York, Sussex, Keele, etc, were then called "the New Universities", not least because they were built of concrete with hardly any bricks! Obviously there have been waves of "newer" universities created since then, so I don't know what the 60s universities are called collectively now, but "redbrick" they're not. -- Arwel 18:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] close quarters battle

Since the term CQB is pretty commonplace among weapons sellers, and among tacticians, and it is a specific form of firearms combat having its own vocabulary ("mouse gun", "nose gun", etc) and hardware, I think having that link (off of ACOG) is worthwhile. You changed it to battle rifle as I recall. I'd like to write the CQB article as I read about it a lot and it's somewhat of a hobby (not the battling itself, but the being informed about same). What's your opinion on the subject? I'd be happy to collaborate with you as well, or to flesh out an existing article, or even make a redir from CQB to an existing article if one exists which is sufficient. Thanks again by the way for your work on the firearms stuff. Avriette 04:51, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sentence case

Hi there,

I notice your good work and wanted to ask your opinion on weapon terminology. You may have seen some of my sentence case edits. I note that BL 4.5 inch gun has a lower case 'g' and BL 5.5 inch Gun has an upper case 'G'. This inconsistency may appear in other weapons. It is sometimes inconsistent within body text too. Can you help determine which is correct? Thanks. Bobblewik  (talk) 14:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(moved from Bobblewik talk page) So far as I can tell, Gun (capital-G0 is part of the weapons title, I am making the British guns more consistent, and I've found a few others that need listing/articlesGraemeLeggett 14:55, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I have also wondered article titles should write pounder in full. What do you think? Bobblewik  (talk) 19:27, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PA 103

Hi Graeme, I have a query about some of your edits to PA 103. You capitalized several words like constabulary, which are not normally capitalized, and you changed Calder Hall to Sellafield. Did you have a reason for doing this? Calder Hall was the power plant people thought have blown up, not Sellafield. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:42, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] armored car

How is a stryker not an armored vehicle? Just read the wikipedia article on strykers. Wikipedia is not the only source to call a styker an armored vehicle. A stryker is most definitely an armored vehicle.

Please respond back within a week or else I will revert my changes.


If you are going to trim down the list of armored vehicles, I woudl suggest taht you make a new wikipage called something like List_of_Armored_Cars so that the information is not "lost".Bubbleboys 17:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mass reverts

It wasn't a matter of style - if it was, yes, I would copyedit. But all of his edits were copyviolations from the BBC Episode Guide and in one case the Doctor Who Reference Guide (I got suspicious as the completeness of the edits and did a Google search, and lo and behold...). I probably should have made it clearer in the edit summary but it was easier just to roll it back. I left a note in Talk:Robot (Doctor Who), though, by way of explanation. --khaosworks 15:06, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I'm a bit disappointed you didn't assume good faith on my part and just ask me why. While I've definitely rewritten stuff or rephrased it, I don't think I've ever made a revert just because I don't like the style... --khaosworks 15:19, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bismarck battleship

This regards this exhange with Ypacarai: In English usage all ships are 'she'. Even the ones with male names. GraemeLeggett 16:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually I'm not sure about Bismarck, but in Kriegsmarine some ships were called with masculine gender. I'll check it later. --Ypacaraí 16:12, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

[edit] Butting In on Topic

(This to Ypacarai):

If I Can shove nose in where doesn't belong, on the above, IIRC, the Nazi Kriegsmarine had explicit orders from Uncle Adolf to use Masculine gender for such virile warships. Which they shut up shuddering and soldiered about, but implimented anyway. So I think you are correct in all respects, despite thousands of years seafarer of tradition. Don't recollect whether Hitler applied to all warships, or just battleships. I wouldn't be surprised if snopes.com has something on that oddity. I have a dutch contact, if that helps — assuming someone may need to read german. (I'll co-post to GraemeLeggett)

In additon to that, just wanted to say 'Hi!', it seems we have a common interest. I'm getting ready to do a severe upgrade of Russo-Japanese War artys, so you may be a resource or lead provider. Aw, don't feel abused, I'm also naturally friendly and gregarious!

I want to do a section or perhaps a seperate article of Ships of the R-JW variety. Protected Cruisers, Armored Cruisers, both have a pretty good article herein, tho' each could use a bit of historical expansion (and I notice the PC arty is a little US-centric, i.e. no mention of when British navy, or others, dropped the class), but the pre-Dreadnought BB... s.a. the ones Japan bought from the U.K. need some elaboration and color, just for the monumental importance of the Battle of Tsushima.

If you've got personal knowledge, a reference recommendation, or such, I'd really be grateful. Wouldn't mind a co-writer/editor either — Want to come on board?

[[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 13:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Telepathy

04:14 Revolver (diff; hist) . . GraemeLeggett (Talk) (→Loading and unloading - improived readability (to my mind))

Nope, didn't work, I still can't read your mind...  :) scot 15:26, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aircraft template

Hi Graeme - I note you've created a parametrised template for aircraft data. Just a quick heads-up that you've based this on an obsolete standard. WikiProject Aircraft abandoned infoboxes in favour of a text-based specifications section almost a year ago now. There are still quite a few of the old tables around out there, but they're slowly but surely being replaced. You can find the new layout at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content or see it in action in any of the articles listed on Wikipedia:New articles (Aircraft).

Having said that, the idea of using parametrised templates isn't a bad one and has been discussed by the project before. We'd probably need something like a dozen to cover all the different aircraft types. If you'd like to put a proposal to the project, please jump in on the talk page. Cheers --Rlandmann 28 June 2005 15:01 (UTC)

Hi again - now that you've added your template to a few pages, can I ask you to please wait for feedback from the community before continuing? These three pages offer a clear example of what you've got in mind, and what you're proposing is not trivial. --Rlandmann 28 June 2005 16:30 (UTC)

[edit] Cat controversies

See caterpillar:talk Friday 28 June 2005 18:41 (UTC)


[edit] Image:Alvis-vickers.gif

Image deletion warning The image Image:Alvis-vickers.gif has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. If you feel that this image should not be deleted, please go there to voice your opinion.

I am listing your version of this image for deletion because I have uploaded what I consider a better one (Image:Alvis-Vickers.png). Bobbis 2 July 2005 00:54 (UTC)

[edit] Ariel

British is a disambiguation page (which is what we are all trying to avoid surely). The only logical path from Aerial through it is to United Kingdom, i.e. back to where you start. I'm thinking of it this way, let's say we're talking about France. The link would thus be [[France|French]] , i.e. Renault is a French company — the opposite of what you are proposing, [[British|United Kingdom]]. The analagous link to the Renault example is [[United Kingdom|British]]. Mark 4 July 2005 22:53 (UTC)


[edit] TOG2 Tank

Hi Graeme - Thanks for the compliments on the Bovington photos. My Grand-daughter Anne is about 3 foot 3 inches in height. Actually she and my wife both really enjoyed the tank museum and were surprised at the number of exhibits, there are a few interactive things to keep the kids amused. We were in there about two hours but if I'd been on my own I would have taken all day over it !!! Hope you enjoy your visit later in the year (all Dorset is great) and theres plenty of room for expansion in the Tank Museum article so I hope you add to it. Best Regards Mick Knapton 2005 July 5 14:44 (UTC)

Don't forget to take a picture of Little Willie on your visit! :o)--MWAK 6 July 2005 15:06 (UTC)

[edit] Pounder or pdr

I notice that there is an inconsistency in article titles, some say 'pounder' and some say 'pdr'. My preference would be for the full rather than abbreviated version in the title. What do you think? Bobblewik  (talk) 5 July 2005 20:04 (UTC)

[edit] De-bolding specifications

I am glad that you de-bolded the specifications in R100. I don't like the bold format.

I got that format from the aviation template. I would support you if you suggested that the template should be de-bolded. Bobblewik  (talk) 5 July 2005 22:24 (UTC)

[edit] edit comments

i tire of reading edits from you with no comment. you may not realize that i have many hundreds of pages on my watchlist, and keep track on said articles to avoid inaccuracies and vandalism. while i don't expect you to vandalize something, i do trust your editing enough to know that you're not knowingly going to make anything incorrect. as such, if i see a comment like "fixed a link to recoil operation", i am inclined to think, "oh, that was nice of him" rather than "what did he do to that article" and subsequently spend a few seconds figuring it out. you'd save me a lot of time if you would just be a little more conscientious. Avriette 18:15, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

In your last fifty edits, only two of them have had an edit comment. i appreciate that you did start adding comments after i left the above message. however, the effect was shortlived. please be more considerate to the other wikipedia users. Avriette 00:39, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
Going over the last seven days of stuff on my watchlist, I ran across a lot of yours. Surprisingly, after weeks of your being pretty good about it, I am again finding the ratio of 2 edit comments per your last fifty edits. And an additional two which were marked "minor". Avriette 19:40, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sunbeam

Are part of your edits to the Sunbeam motorcycle page copied text from another websites without permission? They appear to be from the onthebeam in the external links section. SimonFromLids 16:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Never seen the website before in my life. So my edits are clear. But having seen the page and compared the text it seems that someone's been a badboy. I'll excise some copyvio material. GraemeLeggett 16:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Cheers, that seems better. SimonFromLids 12:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "american" on carbine

First, thank you for including an edit comment in your recent cleanup of carbine. The only issue I have with it is your inclusion of the word "(American)". I think that while it is true, I worked to remove the us-centric focus of the original article because I felt that it wasn't necessary to categorize the carbine in terms of american law -- especially since it has undergone drastic change in this year. The sentence is perfectly reasonable without the word, as firearms are regulated elsewhere in the world, and I feel with the word, it unnecessarily narrows the scope of the sentence. Avriette 01:10, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect edit in .30-06 Springfield

You added in a reference to assault rifles using smaller bullets, obsoleting the .30-06, when that's quite inaccurate. The 7.62x51 and 7.62x39 both use bullets of the same diameter and similar size; the primary difference is in the power that's backing them. Hell, the original assault rifle was a 7.92 mm. The move towards smaller bullets, 5.56 and 5.45 mm, among others, was a later trend, and not the one that doomed the .30-06. Night Gyr 17:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilove

  • Thanks for your copyedit on Schwerer Gustav - i've been looking at that article for too long to do a good copyedit. Keep up the good work. Megapixie 22:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] moving BAE Hawk

Your move of BAE Hawk to Hawker Siddeley Hawk created a lot of double redirects. Next time you do a major page move like that, check to ensure this doesn't happen - I had to fix five of them, and they'd been that way for a bit. Also, I'm not actually sure that it belongs under HS - most of our aircraft with multiple manufacturers are listed under the most prolific, not the original; otherwise, the F-4 Phantom II would be the F4H Phantom II, and the Boeing 717 would be located at McDonnell Douglas MD-95.

So, be careful, and make sure your moves are logical. -eric ✈ 09:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Squadron lists at PBY Catalina

Hey Graeme. Did you see my note on the Catalina article about why I removed the individual squadron listings? I think it'd be great if we could get the article up to Featured, and I honestly think it's a liability to have individual squadrons on there. It's a near-impossible task to find every American squadron that flew Cats, and then it'll be a perfectly valid question why the UK and NZ squadrons are listed and no one else, and most of those squadrons are probably going to be red links ad infinitum. Remember that this was one of the most widely produced aircraft of all time :). As far as I can tell, no other noteworthy WWII aircraft has squadron lists in its article: P-51, Hawker Hurricane, Supermarine Spitfire, Mitsubishi Zero, not even the Me-262, which was probably only flown with half-a-dozen units. At any rate, I do hope you'll reconsider, or at least convince me that having the list of squadrons won't hurt our featured article chances. Thanks for your consideration. Fernando Rizo T/C 15:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Graeme- Thanks for continuing to pitch in over at PBY Catalina. I hope that you and I and Ericg can get her up to Featured Article before long. Now, in response to you note on the article talk page, I really do think putting up the squadron listing is unmaintainable for the Cat. Notice how the B-24 Liberator gets around having to list individual US Army Air Force squadrons by listing air corps instead. As Ericg said on my talk page, the previous aircraft Featured Article (Convair B-36) didn't have a squadron list. Ericg created a List of PBY Catalina operators subpage with that information on it, and that page is linked to on the Catalina article. Trust me, when we get Catalina to featured article, it'll all have been worth it. If you're upset at all, please don't take it personally- I'm only working for the best interests of the article, not trying to piss you off. :) Keep pitching in brother! --Fernando Rizo T/C 18:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reason for revert

Your edit to M2 machine gun left the intro incoherent and meaningless. It is perfectly pertinent to refer to smaller-closely related guns in the intro. The fact that some if this info is mentioned elsewhere is fine. So let's link to it. That's what Wikipedia is about, a repository of info linked to relevant info.That's why I reverted Moriori 09:00, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Making firearms-stub a subcat of weapon-stub

I just put a prop up on the stub sorting project page to make {{firearms-stub}} a subcat of {{weapon-stub}}. Any comments ? Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals#Make_firearms-stub_a_subcat_of_weapon-stub

[edit] PBY table

:D. I've got no beef with tables when they make sense! Prettytable for the win. -eric ✈ 09:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Delia derbyshire RW.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Delia derbyshire RW.png. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag, so its copyright status is therefore unclear. Please add a tag to let us know its copyright status. (If you created/took the picture then you can use {{gfdl}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{fairuse}}.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know on the image description page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Otherwise, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. Thanks so much. --Secretlondon 22:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your aircraft specs template has been nominated for deletion

I have nominated Template:Aircraft-jet-mil for deletion, because Ericg and I have developed another template for use by the project. We're putting the finishing touches on it, and should present it to the WikiProject in a week or so. Thanks, Ingoolemo talk 04:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aircraft specs policy

Several weeks ago, you voted in the WikiProject Aircraft Specifications Survey. One of the results of the survey was that the specifications for the various aircraft articles will now be displayed using a template. Ericg and I have just finished developing that template; a lengthier bulletin can be found on the WT:Air talkpage. Naturally, we will need to begin a drive to update the aircraft articles. However, several topics in the survey did reach establish consensus, and they need to be resolved before we implement the template. It is crticial that we make some conclusion, so that updating of the specs can resume as soon as possible. You can take part in the discussions here. Thanks, Ingoolemo talk 05:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] See also heading over navboxes

Hi. I agree that the navboxes are in the category of "see also", but adding a heading over them is visually redundant. Navboxes are designed to graphically stand out and look like groups of navigation links. Putting a heading over a navbox is like putting a heading over an infobox.

Semantically, on the other hand, I would agree that the navbox falls under the heading immediately above it. If a navbox has a title, I would not oppose formatting it as an HTML <h2> element (heading level 2, to match other main headings), as long as the heading was styled to match the appearance of the navbox. —Michael Z. 2005-10-12 09:27 Z

[edit] Modern APC

Hi Graeme, thanks for your comments. What I am trying to do is group all wheeled APC and IFV that are post WWII as modern. Do you feel that maybe I should use a different word instead of "modern"?--Jcw69 07:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I used the qualification "(Post WW2)" in my nav box template for British military vehicles - look at Ferret. GraemeLeggett 11:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Better to just call it "Modern..." or "Post-WWII...", rather than put a parenthetic statement in the title of a navbox. —Michael Z. 2005-10-18 16:48 Z

[edit] Coronation chicken

Aw, you're no fun. :) Correction accepted though, it was POV. I have to say, though, that I can excuse the 1950s a lot, but people were still serving this particular horror right into the 1980s, and it's probably not in its grave yet. Tarquin Binary 11:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Page Redesign

I, Mollsmolyneux, have redesigned the List of incomplete Doctor Who serials page. To view it please Click Here. Please leave any comments you have about the page on My Talk Page and tell me if you think I should put the page on. -- Mollsmolyneux 12:51, 12 Nov 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Sea Slug missile

Apologies for my poor command of the English language on this page, its' what comes of 5 years university education. I'm interested in all the other cold war RN projects and have a lot of notes and books to work from, but think I'll run my contributions through a spell and grammar checker next time. Emoscopes 15:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Image:Kangaroo tank.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Kangaroo tank.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

[edit] US AFV template modification

You might want to go back and revise this change. The DUKW, for example, is strictly speaking an unarmoured vehicle and does not really fit this modified AFV template. I won't change it for the time being Rmackenzie 17:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Río de la Plata

Thanks...I should have included that myself...although I was ready to not look at anything to do with the Río de la Plata ever again by the time I was done. :-) I dunno if you saw my comments on Talk:Río de la Plata that actually strongly support the text you added to the article lead. Good work all around.  :-) Tomertalk 10:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HMS Affray

Thankyou very much for bringing my Affray page up to a Wikipedia standard! You don't know how to insert a picture of her on there, do you?(Khan 03:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)) Do you have a picture? Is it uploaded? If so, I can add it. Otherwise go to Wikipedia:Uploading images and do the upload then tell me where it is and I'll put it into the article. GraemeLeggett 09:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC) Here is a good one which shows how large she was http://website.lineone.net/~britannic98/prevexp/affray002.jpg (Khan 10:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Thanks GraemeLeggett

[edit] County class cruiser

Hello, would appreciate any input you have in the discussion at Template talk:County class cruiser. Thanks, --Kralizec! | talk 00:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Norfolk Regiment

Why have you moved the article back to The Norfolk Regiment? It was a single lineage, from the 9th Regiment of Foot, to the Norfolk Regiment and when the "Royal" distinction was conferred upon it in 1935. It was effectively just a name change. SoLando (Talk) 16:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed you've requested a move back to the Royal Norfolk Regiment. Do you think the 9th Regiment of Foot article should be merged with the RNR if it doesn't get an expansion soon? SoLando (Talk) 16:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Ive just fulfilled the Requested Move. By the way, thank you for transforming so many of those Royal Navy articles. They've long been neglected :-( SoLando (Talk) 16:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] traction engine image

Yes, I think that it is a Showman Engine - I guess it shouldn't be on the traction engine page then - or perhaps just update the image text. -- Jbattersby 21:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Showman's engines are traction engines, I just wanted to get the caption right.GraemeLeggett 09:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history

Howdy GraemeLeggett. I've noticed that alot of your edits are focused on military-related subjects and was wondering if you've heard about Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. I think you could have alot of valuable ideas and opinions and could really help out. Oberiko 03:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advice please

As you've been round the Wiki block more times than I have, could I crave your advice? An editor - Kurt Leyman - has deleted bits from Tirpitz and Battle of the Denmark Strait. I don't think that these deletions are justified, but rather than just revert, I'd rather get a 3rd party view. Also, I asked for reasoning behind the Battle of the Denmark Strait edits, but have had no answer. Folks at 137 00:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd give him a day or so yet, but you should not fear to reinsert items if you feel they are justified and proven. At the same time flag the point up on the article talk page where you give give your reasoning. I can't personally say i agree with tagging the removal of whole sentences as "m" for minor. GraemeLeggett 11:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Aec matador.jpg

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Aec matador.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 03:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crime against humanity

Hi there, as you already helped at the Dresden bombing article, would you please take a look at the same question at the related article? Philip Baird Shearer asked for a "third opinion" and got one from a user who got really angry with me when I saw the point of someone who said that it might not be a good idea to have an article about the Iraq war dominated by three guys from the US military. Get-back-world-respect 23:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of missiles

You know, I was looking at AIM-9 Sidewinder's recent changes today (per my watchlist). I noticed that somebody added the AMRAAM to the "See also" section. It occurred to me that while we have {{airlistbox}} on most of these articles, doesn't it make more sense to have a "missiles" or "american military missiles" (or even, american air-to-air) template instead? It seems redundant to link off to every missile in a "see also" section in every (okay, most..) articles. What's your thought on this? aa v ^ 15:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:RAF WWII Air defence of the UK

I see you have made a start (on your home page). Looks like it could be quite useful. You might also like to have a look at battle of the beams R.V. Jones and List of World War II electronic warfare equipment for some additional information. When you have fettled it a little let me know and I'll see if I can make some constructive comments. The third area I suppose we need to look at is WWWII RAF tactical airforce(s). --Philip Baird Shearer 16:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. You may want to add this page, instead of the Luftwaffe page for this template, since it is directly relavant. Keep up the good work. Andreas 13:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

When you turn the table that you created at the bottom of the Royal Observer Corps article into a template with a name like Template:RAF WWII Air defence of the UK please let me know the name you have selected to use. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] naval guns

Any reason you think that adding "Support" to the article helps? Seems to just make it harder to find. Not all applications of Naval Gunfire are support after all. It seems that there are a bunch of little definition article on various aspects of Naval Gunfire. Remember, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Dividing the information only makes it hard to find.--Counsel 22:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for edit summary

Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 23% for major edits and 21% for minor edits. (Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.)

This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 10:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image Tagging Image:TL Golden Syrup tin.jpg

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:TL Golden Syrup tin.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 03:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Boyes.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Boyes.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as {{db-unksource}}.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo. 06:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Terry_Nation.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Terry_Nation.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 13:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Cruiser MkIII .jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Cruiser MkIII .jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Shyam (T/C) 19:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Cruiser Mk II.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Cruiser Mk II.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Shyam (T/C) 19:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Cruiser Mk IV.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Cruiser Mk IV.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Shyam (T/C) 19:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Cruiser Mk V.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Cruiser Mk V.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Shyam (T/C) 19:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Italian manned torpedo

I uploaded your image Image:Maiale at gosport.jpg on commons [[1]].--Moroboshi 13:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Medium_Tank_Mk_C.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Medium_Tank_Mk_C.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 19:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image Tagging Image:Lanchester gun.jpg

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Lanchester gun.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam (T/C) 07:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Motorcycle_engine_configs.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Motorcycle_engine_configs.PNG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 14:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image Tagging Image:Original action man logo.jpg

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Original action man logo.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —User:ACupOfCoffee@ 23:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Percy_hobart.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Percy_hobart.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 10:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image Tagging Image:Pom Pom 2pdr 8.jpg

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Pom Pom 2pdr 8.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stan 13:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:R100_in_Canada.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:R100_in_Canada.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 12:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:R101_at_mast.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:R101_at_mast.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Image legality questions. 13:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FV430/432

Hi!

I was updating FV432, and discovered that a lot of it seemed to be concerned with the other vehicles in the series rather than the APC itself. Given that some of these (like the Abbot) differed significantly from the base FV432, and that we had an article on the CVR(T) series, it seemed best to start a new page for the series as a whole. If nothing else, it would limit confusion between variants of the FV432 (like the mortar carrier or the ambulance) and variants of the base chassis, like the Swingfire.

You're right that it probably would have made more sense to rename the original article, but I didn't think of that at the time - I confess to being tired... and as for it being a stub, that's because I went to bed! I'd been going to come back to it today; thanks for the improvements.

Also, some related questions you might know the answer to:

  1. Do you know if the FV109 Workhorse is anything more than a daydream - perhaps a cancelled project? Never heard of one in print, it doesn't seem to be needed given there's three other vehicles for the task, and the best source I can find is one internet site of dubious authenticity.
  2. Some internet sources call the FV432 the "Trojan" - any idea if there's anything behind this? The print sources are silent on a name.
  3. Should the numbers be FV-xxx, FVxxx, or FV xxx? I'm leaning towards the version without a space, FVxxx, but I don't have anything formal to work off.

Thanks again for the expansion of FV430 series - it was looking pretty sorry when I left it last night. Shimgray | talk | 18:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:R101_crash_aerial.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:R101_crash_aerial.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Image legality questions. 10:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Funny?

See this diff [[2]]. Please refrain from being funny. In case you would like to be funny, please visit uncyclopedia.com - they will be happy to have more funny editors, I am sure. THX. Msoos 14:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, accept my apologies, please! I was quick to judge! Msoos 15:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date dab

I see you added links to many dates on German World War II destroyers. I know it's often done, but I've not understood WHY! Can you enlighten me, please? Cheers. Folks at 137 12:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sherman Tank

1525 Hours 11 April, 2006

Thanks for the corrections you made to the wording of the diesel engine section.

Philippsbourg

[edit] Thanks for "grammar edits"

Just wanted to say thanks for all these "grammar edits". I fear I'll never learn to use "a" / "the" (and some other words) properly :). Bukvoed 10:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brabazon

Please see Template talk:Giant aircraft. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Templates

I've commented here, but I'm pinging you directly as well in case you don't watch that page: the consensus has been that creating different infoboxes for every type of military unit is a bad idea, and that they should all use {{Infobox Military Unit}} instead. Is there some particular flaw in the generic infobox that makes it unsuitable for RAF units? Kirill Lokshin 22:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Sentinel-acIV.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sentinel-acIV.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:133 squadron crest.gif

Aloha! Whilst editing, I came across an article using Image:133 squadron crest.gif, which you uploaded. You've provided a licence, but unfortunately Wikipedia also requires that all images used in articles have source information, in order that the license can be verified. If you're still around, could you edit the image to include where you found the image, or if you created it yourself, a statement to that effect? If a source is not provided, the image may well be removed from Wikipedia without further notice. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 19:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] County class info box

The box was an attempt to illustrate the evolution of the class (and to suss whether the York and Exeter should be included). There are other ship classes where evolution can be shown (IMHO). I'm a bit peeved by your action, to be honest. I would rather have a consensus action than just one individual's arbitrary deletion - or a discussion about the relevance (or accuracy) of the data or better ways of showing it. If the consensus were to be different then I would not (could not) object and I'd probably make the effort to do the necessary changes. For the sake of debate, why is it a problem having a wide table? It offers a quick cross-reference and I don't understand why size is a problem here. Might be a good idea to transfer this argument/ debate/ difference to the County class talk page. It's been a long day - regards, Folks at 137 19:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Triple units

This aberration seems to be of my devising, I'm afraid: personally I understand feet and inches, and understand that metres are terribly popular nowadays, but was unwilling to remove the original author's measurements consisting of inches, lbs only. Perhaps not bold enough for Wikipedia, but I thought it was the polite thing to do, though we do seem to be left with three types of measure! Chris 14:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The Aircraft project lot are happy with feet and inches and metres. If you go back through the various iteratiosn of the Sherman article I don't think inches alone was ever used unitl now.GraemeLeggett 08:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
You're right, I hadn't noticed that. I've changed it now, it looks a lot more legible, I think. Chris 09:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UK designations

I think you will find that something needs to go in front of "SP" otherwise the designation would start "Self Propelled"..... compare with the Abbot which is Field Artillery, Self-propelled, Abbot. GraemeLeggett 15:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

    • Not according to my source British and American Tanks of World War Two [[3]] King nothing 16:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goods manufactured in Canada

Hi Graeme,

My intent for the category is to have a scope of all entities manufactured in Canada - I'm not an expert on the subject of the Arrow, but because we don't seem to have individual articles for prototypes or individual Arrows themselves, if any Arrow models were manufactured entirely in Canada then I think the whole Avro Arrow article belongs in the category. Otherwise without including the article we'd have no way of noting with categories that the prototypes/whatever were in fact manufactured in Canada. I agree that the category name seems slightly off in regard to the Arrow's inclusion though. Kurieeto 12:19, 16 May 2006 (UT

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for keeping an eye on the Norwich page Graeme. It's really amazing how some articles have evolved over time as I am sure you as an active contributer must have noticed.Norwikian 07:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of italics / quotes around ship classes

As you may have noticed, User_talk:Gdr, has been removing the italics and quotes around the letter names for ship Royal Navy classes. I agree with them on the italics, but not on the quotation marks. (see User_talk:Gdr). I put this (and my reasoning) to them, but they didn't really answer my question, what are your thoughts on this? Emoscopes Talk 11:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I went to the MoS first on ship naming - where I found there was a convention on the use of hyphens I didn't know about - but its not clear. I can see that Gdr position can be justified as an extension of the "Battle-class" example. The RAN website uses single quote for the classes they were given (as in 'A' ). Geoff Chalcraft [4] who is on the ball so far as I can see with WW2 subs uses both single quote and no-quote with hyphen. RN sites use a plain style. This is at the moment not a question of content but style. Perhaps this should be flagged up under the MoS naming conventions for ships for further discussion by other interested parties. I would suggest that you put it to Gdr that they are left status quo for the moment until some consensus is reached and added to the MoS. GraemeLeggett 13:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conserning Berserk (manga)

Would you mind replying to my comment that I left on your statement in Talk:Berserk (manga). You really need to state why you think something "should be", especially when it appears to conflict with WP:NC.

[edit] Re: Recategorising ship classes

To be absolutely honest I'm also unsure if something like Category:Agincourt class battleships is a good idea. However, it makes Category:Battleship classes look prettier if everything's in categories and makes it easier to find things there. Even though Agincourt was a one-off, I still feel she should be able to be found under Battleship classes. In addition, there are single-ship classes with both a class article and a ship article. In those cases, the design of the ship is discussed in the class article, and the history of the ship is discussed in the ship article. I can't recall a specific one but saw some in the course of my categorization. Something similar could be done someday for Agincourt, in which case an Agincourt cat would make sense to group them.

Anyway, this is how I rationalized it to myself. I think Category:Battleship classes is improved by Agincourt's inclusion, and I think Agincourt is improved by being included under Category:Battleship classes, and I created the single-ship cat to make her fit in better there. It may have been the wrong decision. Maybe a better idea would be to create a category for single ship battleship classes and put Agincourt and others into it, then list that under Category:Battleship classes. TomTheHand 12:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem (to my mind) is that there isn't a whole class of battleships based on Agincourt - she's a one off. Perhaps a category for "unique designs" is called for. GraemeLeggett 13:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I wish I'd thought this through further before I did some of this categorization, but I agree that a "unique designs" cat is probably the way to go. It would have sub-categories for battleships, aircraft carriers, etc. Agincourt is unfortunately the only unique battleship design I've found right now, so she would be going right into another single-article category, but I don't want to link the whole "unique designs" cat and have people wondering if "HMS Agincourt (1913)" is a battleship, an aircraft carrier, or what.
On the same note, maybe a "planned classes" category would be a good idea. For example, I put Lion class battleship into its own category, but it's the only article there and there's no potential for more. It would probably be more appropriate to put it into a "planned battleship classes" cat.
I'm actually a little iffy on using the word "unique," though. I think someone could look at it and think the "Without an equal or equivalent; unparalleled" definition of "unique" rather than simply "the only one of its kind." I also don't quite like "one-off designs" but I think "one-off" is more free of implications. TomTheHand 13:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Choice of words will be important - how about something like "single ship designs". For members of the class, you could try, among battleships these arguably one-offs: HMS Erin(modified design from first KGV), HMS Neptune (1909) (sisterships built to modified design), HMS Dreadnought (1906) (built as one-off even if next ones more or less a copy), HMS Vanguard (1944) (last RN), Japanese battleship Mikasa. HMS Ark Royal (1914) for carriers. GraemeLeggett 14:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Also the battlecruiser HMS Tiger (1913) GraemeLeggett 14:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, "single ship designs" works for me, but the sub-categories don't sound as good: "single ship battleship designs," "single ship aircraft carrier designs," etc? I do think the sub-categories are necessary. TomTheHand 14:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Graeme! This is to let you know that there is a new strand on this issue [here]. I'd also like to thank you for your sterling work on HMS Hood (51) and elsewhere. Regards, John Moore 309 16:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rolls-Royce

Thanks for re-instating my recent RRMPO section to Rolls-Royce - I'd asked the editor who removed it to re-consider, as the nuclear side is a significantly different area of work to the aircraft/car business. Hopefully he/she won't remove it again! - MightyWarrior 16:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That would be me! I have reconsidered, I don't disagree strongly enough to remove it again, if you know what I mean.
However I'm not happy with the whole way RR is handled on WP. I have a clear understanding of the various companies RR refers to, but I would suggest it is not explained very well. I think "Rolls-Royce" should be a very simple disambig with links to:
  • Rolls-Royce plc (for car/aero info 1904-1973 and aero info 1973-present)
    • Rolls-Royce plc subsidiary...
    • Rolls-Royce plc subsidiary...
    • Rolls-Royce plc subsidiary...
  • Rolls-Royce Motors (for history of the car-maker spun off in 1973)
  • Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Limited (BMW company)
  • Bentley (related VW company)
Any thoughts? Regards --Mark83 19:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


I would start with the creation of Rolls-Royce (disambiguation) Then the various incarnations of RR can be identified including the current companies with RR in their title. That is a logical useful, and importantly uncontroversial move. You can then put a link tot hat from any RR article. I would then consider an article on the history of RR (ie the overall history of the name). This can be linked to from other articles on RR subjects with {{main}} or similar. The remaining and possibly controversial piece of work would be the move of the current RR article to somewhere else and redirect RR to the disambig page. There would also be a lot of link checking along the way.

Another thought - is there a RR timeline template in existence - see {{British Leyland}} as an example - that would illustrate the company through the years and the elements including additions such as Bristol Siddeley.GraemeLeggett 08:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Some very useful suggestions thank you. I've had a stab at it, take a look and see what you think. Might try and sort a timeline out too. --Mark83 21:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Seems like a good start - lot of disambig bypassing to be done though. GraemeLeggett 08:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The changes above created over 400+ links to the dab page. I just put a short overview article back at Rolls-Royce. I borrowed phrases from various RR articles, and I think I got all the facts right. (I'm not a RR expert, so please correct if needed). This gets rid of the links to the disambig page, and gives people high-level information on the various RR companies. All the links are there if they want to delve deeper. Simon12 03:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blackburn B-20

If you can track down those missing specs, you'll be a champion among men. There's very limited information about it, both online and in Jane's. ericg ✈ 16:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:BS_Golden_syrup_jar.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BS_Golden_syrup_jar.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maritime warfare task force

Graeme,

Good news: Kirill Lokshin (talk • contribs) has recently created the Maritime warfare task force as part of the Military History project. Bad news: so far, it has only three members (the worst news is that one of them is me).

I think this would be a good forum for discussing of maritime warfare/naval history, exchanging ideas and establishing best practice at a more general level than the Ships project. If you are interested, can I suggest you pay a visit and, if you like what you see, sign up?

Regards, John Moore 309 16:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] They've killed the List of famous failures in science and engineering! You Bastards!!

Mmx1 is taking the fight that I have over the F-14 and F-111 to the failure page, and he has nominated them for deletion. The wiki-thugs are all voting to delete the page. Mmx1 has reversed the F-14 page to state that it is not, and has never been designed as a maneuverable air superiority fighter, and is not accepting any contrary citations up to and including a F-14 test pilot, Janes Defence, and Aviation Week. He is apparently taking revenge against other pages. Please go to the deletion page and tell the administrators what is going on. Look at the patterns of MMx. He regular accuses others of gross misinformation and summarily reverts most edits as a self-appointed judge of all truth, but in fact should not be allowed this leeway. --matador300 10:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opposition to category moves

I noticed you posted your opposition to the category moves. How would you prefer things to be categorized? Could you post your suggestions to WP:SHIPS? I'd really like to come up with a coherent scheme, and simply voting "oppose" to moves without participating in the discussion of the proposal is unhelpful. TomTheHand 17:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Air Ministry Specifications

Hi Graeme.

Thanks. I think I must be slightly-mad. - LOL! Ian Dunster 15:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Olympias (trireme)

Thanks for your edits to Olympias (trireme), but please note that full dates always need to be fully wikified (so they format automatically per User prefs), but lone years don't. See WP:MOSDATE for info. Thanks, R.

[edit] Unit construction

I noticed your merge tags on 3 articles about Unit construction motorcycle engines and thought about that too. I would like to do it as you suggest, expanding the basic article and making a BSA section from the 2 articles you tagged: BSA Unit singles motorcycles & Unit single's design. Besides which the article titles are rather cumbersome. Will you help or shall i just do it when i get time - not this week. Cheers ww2censor 14:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I might get a chance to apply some edit before the merge, but feel free to rework what I do. GraemeLeggett 15:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ==Template:Groundbreaking submarines==

There was a discussion abut the template, and we decided to clean some entries, though without full consensus on which exactly. While some of my cleanup might have been excessive, restoring all boats is excessive as well; this box becomes useless when it's too bloated. Remember it's about groundbreaking submarines, not just notable or important, and that it's just a change in the template, not article removal. Please reply here, on my talk page or on the template talk (to engage in a lengthy and detailed discussion) CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 10:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gyrodynes

Hi, I'm OrangUtanUK who has done some stuff on the Gyrodynes page. I'm sorry, but I was doing a chunky big change today and I think it's conflicted with some things you put in. I hope i've identified the main changes and merged them into my update, but perhaps it would be a good idea if you had a look and checked that you like my contribution.

best wishes; OrangUtanUK 17:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

I am writing to inform you, and many others, that an AfD in which you voted delete, List of automobiles that were commercial failures, was already unsucessfully nominated a short time ago, but under a different title. This was not noted in the nomination. Please read the opposing arguments here, and reconsider your vote, because it is important that the opinions of previous voters be considered. Thanks! AdamBiswanger1 23:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rotodyne picture

Hi Graeme, I nonchalently moved the Rotodyne picture back to the Heliplanes section before I could get to read your rationale for putting it in the Gyrodynes section.

Would you argue, then, that the wing-derived lift needs to be above a certain level to qualify the aircraft for the Heliplane designation? I think I would argue that the fixed-wing intention is enough, when coupled with VTOL.

I would enjoy discussing this with you, and others. :o)

cheers, OrangUtanUK 12:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It depends on if there is a real definition of "heliplane". As it stood, the Rotodyne line said 30% from wings, and the heliplane line said most lift from wing not rotor. Such a situation is contradictory and needed resolving. As the article title is "Gyrodynes and heliplanes" then the two should be defined in the first paragarph or so. I would move all defining stuff to the top so the reader knows what a gyrodyne and heliplane is roughly. A history section would then put the evolution of the two terms into perpsective and in the course of that, the Fairey aircraft and more modern aircraft would naturally fall into place. I would also see if "compound helicopter" is covered properly in wikipedia. GraemeLeggett 12:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vickers

Hi Graeme. Well, Iv'e had a bash at sorting out the mess that was the Vickers article, there are now separate Vickers Limited, Vickers Armstrong and Vickers plc articles. Please feel free to hack away at the articles and run your critical eye over them, iv'e tried to make as much sense and order of what already existed on the subject as I could without adding any new information. I think some sort of timeline or navigation template would be nice to link all the various Vickers components together. As always, comments / suggestions / corrections appreciated. Emoscopes Talk 16:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] copied from user page

Your recent contribution to the Wikipedia article Vickers machine gun is very much appreciated. However, please take a moment to look over your contributions for spelling, grammatical, and punctuation errors before submitting them in final. This will help lessen the amount of copyediting work that fellow Wikipedians need to do, and will help improve the overall appearance of Wikipedia. This is not meant to be a disciplinary message, but merely a friendly request. Thank you!

--  Netsnipe  (Talk)  09:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Recoil booster

The drawing of a recoil booster you created is somewhat confusing, it actually looks like more of a muzzle brake than a booster. If the front and rear of the chamber aren't connected, then that would make sense, as the expanding gasses would push the ends apart, which may be what the Vickers booster does. If the drawing shows a single piece unit, then it looks just like the Volquartsen "stabilizer" I have on my 10/22, which traps the gasses and vents them radially. scot 16:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Going from memory, I think that the drawing is a reasonably accurate representation of what the Vickers muzzle-booster does. The rear of the chamber has to be sealed like that to stop the water running out of the cooling jacket. The gases push back on the "cup" that's screwed into the front of the gun barrel, then being vented out through holes in the sides of the muzzle-booster housing once the barrel/cup assembly moves back. That's probably a lousy description, but hopefully you see what I'm getting at.
-- Chris (blather • contribs) 16:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
So the barrel/cup assembly is part of the recoiling mass, and the outer shell is fixed to the cooling sleeve and not part of the recoiling mass? That would essentially make the barrel a piston, and would make the action sort of a recoil/gas operated hybrid, just like the Nielsen devices used in suppressors for short recoil pistols. scot 19:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's correct. I'm not familiar with the Nielsen device, I'm assuming that it's a similar gas-trap contraption to that used on the amusingly-named Bang rifle. Anyway, using the piston analogy, the muzzle-booster body acts as a cylinder, the cup as its piston and the barrel as the con-rod, I guess. The reason for attaching the cup to the end of the barrel is that the surface area of the front of the barrel is quite small: being water-cooled, the barrel is very thin compared to the relatively heavy, thick barrels that you find on the likes of the M1919 and MG42, for example.
-- Chris (blather • contribs) 19:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I will update the picture. I did it in a bit of rush and its obvious it needs more labelling. GraemeLeggett 08:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] XaraXtreme

Hi Graeme, I've been away over the weekend so aplogies I was unable to answer your query, but it's good you got it all figured out. Iv'e been using XaraXtreme and it's predecessor XaraX for about 4 years now, and pretty well know most of its finer workins now, so if ever you have any questions about it please do drop me a line. Emoscopes Talk 22:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British Sherman Bookkeeping

Hello. Since you are knowledgable about British Shermans, do you have a source about the transfer of Shermans among the Allies? Thank you.Wikist 01:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd go look at "Shermanic flyfly" (its in the article links) - the author of that page seems to be up on the bookkeeping aspect. GraemeLeggett 09:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I tried there before posting here but thank you.Wikist 21:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mass specification in Sunderland article

Thanks for the correction, for some reason my units program seems to think an Imperial ton (what you called long ton) is 2400 lb. Bizzare! --BadWolf42 14:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bismarck

Hi Graeme, it's been a while. Can you tell a relative novice like me why you reverted the red links to the air squadrons when they don't work? I haven't time to add the right links to other people's incorrect work (not necessarily your work, of course) and isn't it Wiki policy not to add links that don't link to other Wiki articles? Thanks, Patrick

The policy is to add links to articles that could or should later exist, see Wikipedia:Red link. GraemeLeggett 11:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Graeme bigpad 11:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Norfolk

I used Oxford, which gives it in BBC English. You probably don't speak RP. If you can find a source that documents a specific local pronunciation you're welcome to put it in. If you're interested, I'll try to remember the name of a study of southern English rural dialects. AEuSoes1 09:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

While I can do RP tro some extent, I do speak most of the time with a Norfolk inflection. You might find FOND useful for a link or two. You can also look at the bibliography of Peter Trudgill GraemeLeggett 09:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I should also add that local pronounciation varies depending on the usual factors but also including the Norfolk habit of using both long and short vowel sounds for the same word cf "ruf" and "rooof" for roof. It can vary from a long "Naarfarck" to a short "Norfuck" - the latter giving rise to the punning phrase "Norfolk and good". There is also the Norwich accent to contend with. GraemeLeggett 12:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phelon and Moore (Panther)

Graham, I have added to the Phelon & Moore motorcycle page substantially, and it may well need "wikifying"(?), something I've yet to fully appreciate, so if you feel inclined, feel free. Thank you anyway. Seasalt 11:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you too a "motorcycle enthusiast" Graeme? How about Italian bikes? I've done some Ducati history...Ducati Singles (1950 - 1973) and Ducati Air-cooled V Twins (1970 on) Left a note in air cooled v twins discussion about the page title, also not sure if the links to the pages on Ducati_Motor_Holding are the right wiki way to do it or not?Seasalt 14:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Constituencies

Hi. Looks useful - but no room on present layout and constituency would need to be separated by dash, or brackets, or somehow from name. So - do other counties offer a solution? - I've not looked. An elegant way would be to use those numbers from below somehow - that would be handy. And at first glance they are in that order. So: Ben Bradshaw (1) Angela B.... (2) etc. The reference would be obvious and not need to be spelt out.--Tony in Devon 14:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HMS Hood (51): Review against A standard

I note from [the review] that one complaint was that characteristics of the Hood should be covered more on the Admiral class battlecruiser article. I personally don't hold with that since they only ever built the Hood and she was modified along the way but is ther any other information on the planned ships available.

I agree, of course, but given the generally negative response of the reviewers, I think the best arena to carry on the debate would be a peer review. If I could ask a favour, Graham, would you be willing to take the lead in submitting the article for peer review? I am quite willing to do so myself, but I don't want people to get the impression that I am a monomaniac on the subject.
Thanks for your many contributions, Regards, John Moore 309 14:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I will certainly have a look at the procedure. GraemeLeggett 14:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Horton Ho IV

I understand that you added a tag asking for more specs. Let me know which specs you would like and I will to track them down. Incidentally if you have an interest in aviation, you may wish to add your support to Gliding in Wikipedia:Featured Article Candidates. JMcC 13:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ross rifle/temp nominated for deletion

Hello,

Ross rifle/temp, which you created on 23 May 2006, has been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ross rifle/temp. --Ling.Nut 01:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Vickers

Where is the original article on this company? (Bzuk 16:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Air speed record

We were both editing at the same time. Please check that I have also incorporated your edits. JMcC 13:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eurofighter Typhoon variants

Hi. Have a look at Eurofighter Typhoon variants. I've rewritten the page as a general, non-RAF specific page. I plan to expand the German/Italian/Spanish/Austrian sections in the near future. Saudi Arabia can wait! I've also moved the DA/IPA aircraft info from the main page. Thanks for your input to the renaming discussion. Mark83 20:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RAF Flight Lieutenant Robert Leslie Graham, DFC

Is there a way to get information on the War record for motorcycle racer Leslie Graham? There is little on the web.Seasalt 02:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dreadnought image

Unfortunately, it does. See Commons:Derivative works#Casebook. It's for this exact reason that all the images of 40k miniatures have recently been deleted from Commons (and hence why the Dreadnought image (and others) were reuploaded here). Cheers --Pak21 16:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


But what about

PHOTOS OF PAINTED MODELS We encourage fellow hobbyists to show off their painting skills by taking photos of their miniatures and putting the on the site. Please remember to correctly credit the IP - "miniature © Games Workshop 2003. All rights reserved. Used without permission - model painted by xxxxxxx"

From GW website [5]

GraemeLeggett 17:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

From the same page: "you must not Use Games Workshop's intellectual property in relation to any commercial activity". Non-commercial use only licenses are not acceptable for Wikipedia, so we do have to make our own fair use claim. Cheers --Pak21 17:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 40k fiction

I take it you haven't even considered looking at (eg) Timeline of the Warhammer 40,000 universe or (the old version of) Age of Apostasy yet if you think Imperium (Warhammer 40,000) is bad... Cheers --Pak21 12:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Norwich City F.C.

Well, I think you are right after all. Allow me to thank you for pointing this error out to me! I based my judgment on this page. I guess that section is not comprehensive enough. Anyway, thanks again! --Siva1979Talk to me 17:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


Having quickly read the section it does seem very small. And while in BE we would say "Norwich City are the champions" we would also say "Norwich City is at the top of the league". Folllowing the members of/as an entity emphasis there would also be "Norwich City are in trouble on the pitch now" and "Norwich City is in financial trouble". GraemeLeggett 09:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Major British motorcycle manufacturers

Is there any chance of a North American (or American), and Italian, version of this infobox?Seasalt 11:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC) or Major motorcycle manufacturers of the USA...whatever seems appropriate..

Its not difficult - create the new template eg "USMCbrands" then copy and paste in the code from the UK one. Then edit the names around. If you'd like to try it yourself I can join in if it gets into trouble. GraemeLeggett 13:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enslaver Plague

Hey,

You did a great job on the Necrontyr page in terms of edits, but I do have a question on content. I was under the impression that the Enslavers were actually dangerous to the C'tan. Since the C'tan have no imprint in the warp, they were unable to resist any warp spawned energies. I'll do some research into it, and see if I can find a definite answer. Thanks

-Triad

[edit] Need your feedback

Hello! I hope you are feeling great. I would like you to comment on this talk page regarding the usage of British grammar for football clubs. Your comments would really be helpful! --Siva1979Talk to me 19:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the CSM article

The main reason I want to keep that section as short as possible is because there's been problems in the past with people continually adding redundant info there- they add more and more about the legion (because they happen to be a fan or whatever their reason), so we had huge paragraphs there repeating info already found in the other article.

I suppose just listing that they are dedicated to the god is ok... but any more than that is just frivolous. I haven't been sleeping well, so maybe causing me to be a little more unreasonable than usual.

Also, I've been meaning to say something about it, but you really ought not to summarize an edit as "copyedit" when you are changing content- copyediting is fixing grammar, spelling, tone, etc. Adding or removing content is not copyediting. :) --DarthBinky 17:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Unsigned

Soz, been a while since i was on here... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JamesRandom (talk • contribs).

[edit] About Warhammer Edits

The Goblin (Warhammer) Edit was made for the fact that the Warhammer Goblin Belongs into the Warhammer Fantasy Category. And I didnt like your version of the Gryrocopter. Arctic-Editor 12:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well to my mind,
  1. the Goblin belongs in one of the sub cats of Warhammer Fantasy not the main cat
  2. the gyrocoper article is too small to warrant subsections was broken up and didn't explain anything much to the non-player. GraemeLeggett 12:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] De-linking years

Hey Graeme,

I noticed you've been cleaning up ship articles. Thanks! However, one of the changes you've made is to de-link years that are parts of complete dates. According to the Manual of Style, when a full month-day-year set is available, the month-day pair should be linked and the year should be linked separately in order to fully allow date preferences to work. Please don't de-link any more years that are part of a full date. Thanks! TomTheHand 14:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drebbel: which flag?

You might be interested in the discussion here: Template talk:Groundbreaking submarines#Drebbel : which flag?. TomTheHand 21:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/r/a/User_talk%7EGraemeLeggett_6ca7.html"