User:GraemeLeggett

thank you for the relocation to a temp? file? i located the qualifications and thought aha! 'no original research' and no sources to cite except the Ross Rifle article itself. I have put the article test on my user page. Please mark for deletion the temp article within a week if required. Although when its gone its gone I think. Not enough people in Canada for there to be odds that the Ross Rifle bayonet is published and documented enough to pigeon hole neatly into a Wikipedia article. Fairly good odds that almost everyone in Canada saw or heard of a Ross Rifle bayonet though. Therefore... there should be one as a top search result for several related keywords? John Zdralek 11:17, 26 May 2006 (MDT)

[edit] Brit motor cycle test

Major British motorcycle marques

AJS - BSA - Matchless - Norton - Panther (Phelon & Moore) - Royal Enfield - Triumph - Velocette

edit

[edit] Help on a lot of fronts

Ian, first of all, let me thank you for all your excellent contributions to a host of articles that I have been writing, including the rather lengthy biography of aircraft designer John Frost. I intend to nominate the late John Frost for the Canadian Aviation Hall of Fame and I wanted to have a substantial piece of research available to back up the nomination.

Can you advise me how to get the John Frost article evaluated or appraised by others, such as yourself? Also, a related link article, the Avrocar (aircraft), seems to be getting quite a bit of attention from Uccp who is constantly deleting portions of my commentary. Not quite vandalism and I hope he has stopped now after I was forced to rewrite the entire article to completly reference everything I had said earlier.

Bzuk 15:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] templete play

[[Template:{{{name}}}\|v]] • [[Template talk:{{{name}}}\|d]] • [{{fullurl:Template:{{{name}}}\|action=edit}} e] the Old World of the Warhammer Fantasy setting
games	Warhammer Fantasy Battle, Warmaster, Mordheim, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay
Races:	Bretonnia, Tilea, , Skaven, Tomb Kings, Vampire Counts, Wood Elves
Places:	Araby, Cathay, Lustria, Ulthuan, Southlands
the Empire	Stirland, Averland, Reikland Wissenland, Talabland
Cities	Talabheim, Altdorf, Middenheim

[edit] Damaged Goods

This is in reply to something you wrote at Talk:Russell T. Davies, but as it's not really to do with that article I thought I'd write it here instead. Anyway, the Damaged Goods article is written like that because I considered the factual background to how and why the book came to be written and the critical reaction to it to be rather more valuable and encyclopedic than a long plot summary. Besides which, someone always ends up adding those to the Doctor Who articles sooner or later, so I'm sure one will turn up at some point. Angmering 17:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] dates

Well, dude is just a word. I dislike the style of putting the year on one line and the months/day on the subsequent lines. I think it looks bad, and specially so when most years only have 1 date anyway. In a list with say, a dozen dates per year it can be good, but not when it's almost 1 to 1. You can look at some of the "born in this year" type lists where each month is highlighted to see this looking good. but not in the battles list I think. It just makes the page almost twice as long and doesnt really clarify or group the dates, since 1 or 2 dates under each year is hardly a "Group". I just think it looks bad and i dont think it's easier to read than having only the years wikilinked. There's no necessity to link every date anwyay. who really cares what else happened on March 19 for instance? It won't tell you what happened on THAT march 19, just all march 19s. I don't think this is a real plus at all. It's essentially an irrelevant link. SpookyMulder 16:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] once more

You've changed the links on List of Naval Battles by putting the code into text, so that any battle linked with the word "details" now is not linked to. Is there a reason for this? You can't get to the article any more unless you manually type the address in! And if it's a red link you can't create an article by clicking on the link. Why on earth??

You do realize that this change is stupid and will be changed back by the admins? SpookyMulder 08:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Last battle of the Bismarck

Hello Graeme. Thanks for your work on the new Last battle of the battleship Bismarck article. I like the idea of moving the second para of the introduction to an Overview section; this greatly improves the flow.

I hope you don't mind if I raise a few questions.

Wikipedia convention is that an article called Foo begins with a sentence saying "Foo is (or was) ... " whatever it is or was. Your change to the opening sentence means that it no longer conforms with this convention. In fact, the first sentence is about an entirely different subject. What was your problem with the original reading?
I was surprised that you regard the outcome as indecisive. Grand Admiral Raeder, in his book Struggle for the Sea, wrote that "The loss of the Bismarck had a decisive effect on the conduct of the war at sea. Hitler's attitude now changed ... his orders circumscribed my use of heavy units" (quoted in BB Schofield, Loss of the Bismarck, p.71). In modern times, Eric Grove writes "The loss of Bismarck marked an important point in the German guerre de course ... (the Royal Navy) could now concentrate on the U-boats" (German Capital Ships and Raiders in World War II, p.xiii). Again, what was your problem with the original reading?
I don't understand why you resurrected the Merge tag? With the rescoping of the article, the rationale for a merge has completely disappeared.
Why are you putting back in the article so much stuff about the pursuit? Doesn't this belong in Operation Rheinübung? This article is about a battle.

I'm concerned that your changes seem to be blurring the boundaries of the article, whereas my aim in recreating the article was to sharpen then. I'm not sure whether I have failed to communicate my intentions, or whether you actually disagree with them. Either way, I'm happy to talk the issues through, either here (I have added this page to my watchlist) or on the article's talk page. The latter would, I think, be the better forum if there is really a substantive disagreement on what we are trying to achieve. Regards, John Moore 309 21:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Re (some of) your comments.

The changing from "Decisive victory" to just "victory" and the merge tag are the work of User:Kurt Leyman. The merge is something he feels strongly about. GraemeLeggett 09:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the mistake, and thanks for your courtesy. Regards, John Moore 309 10:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/r/a/User%7EGraemeLeggett_5a1f.html"

Category: Wikipedians in Norfolk

User:GraemeLeggett

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

[edit] Aircraft to work on

[edit] Doctor nav template test

[edit] RAF air defence template test

[edit] Ross Rifle bayonet article comments

[edit] Brit motor cycle test

[edit] Help on a lot of fronts

[edit] templete play

[edit] Damaged Goods

[edit] dates

[edit] once more

[edit] Last battle of the Bismarck

Views

Navigation

interaction

Search