User talk:GraemeLeggett/Archive 5

Wolseley Motors

Thank you, it was a puzzling direct quote from the chairman's speech and I guess he was thinking of the whole of Vickers at the time. And thanks for the additional information, I need this kind of informed following by a non-malicious editor, Sincerely, Eddaido (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I see that you are still editing

List of monuments of the Gettysburg Battlefield. The editor right before your last few edits totally changed the look and feel of the article, adding a few good things, but removing most of the images (which happen to have been mine) and screwing with the formatting of what's left something fierce. I believe that since monuments such as these are designed to be looked at, that images are vital. However repairing this mess will be, I believe, a major endeavor, one that I am not inclined to do if it's not supported by the other editors involved. Do you have any thoughts, opinions, feelings or input? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You could go back to the "original" version, then cut and paste from the later addition the useful material (be careful with your edit summaries). If its only introduced partial improvements but lost a lot of material then there is a reason for doing so. Be prepared though that if they revert you should take it to the talk page. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you feel that what is there now is an improvement over what was there before 206.18.170.160 edited, perhaps 4 edits ago? Since most of those edits are yours, and since I don't really understand them - they seem to be largely formatting, and that's something I do not do much of. But first, again, do you feel that it is a better list without the pictures of the various monuments that were there before, and with what is there now? Carptrash (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Seddon Mayfly

Thank you, GraemeLeggett, for editing my Seddon Mayfly article. I couldn't find the information you dug up.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamBrain (talk • contribs) 22:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 

The Wolseley Sheep Shearing Machine Company

Hi Graeme, you've removed the link to Wolseley plc. (trouble is it is exactly the same company) and commented in your edit summary that it is to the modern company - see [here] and I think there is more elsewhere on that site. It is like me making a distinction between Graeme Leggett aged 22 and 'the modern Graeme Leggett' - do you see what I mean? Regards, Eddaido (talk) 01:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I see you point, but The Sheep Shearing name ended with the merger with Hughes in the 50s didn't it? or if its exactly the same company then perhaps the two articles should be merged to just Wolseley plc or if that would it unwieldy a second article: history of Wolseley. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Part A. If your preferred political party decided you should be their man in the House of Lords as Aviation Spokesman and you became known as Baron L of L in the county of L'shire you'd still be the same person though the (paid) occupation may be different (Good Lord, I hope you're not in fact in the HoL!). A company is a legal 'person', a separate legal entity.

Part B. I'm no economic historian but the wool trade was a very big thing (clothing) in the world's temperate and colder zones until the importation of cotton grown in warm climates followed by the switch to more easily maintained synthetics in the 20th century. Wolseley's machinery literally revolutionised the wool industry. It will be far more important to the world always (if perhaps only historically) than absolutely any very large building supply business at all so I would be very strongly against any merger.

It seems to me so often in Wikipedia we get confused as to what the article is about, a business (e.g. making fighter aircraft) or its owner - (e.g. Bombardier? who made the last aircraft I travelled in). I'd like to know your thoughts, regards, Eddaido (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Input to discussion

Your input is welcome on two discussions which may be of interest.

1. Proposed deletion (or renaming) of the following categories: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_21#Politics_of_the_British_Isles
   1. Category:Politics of the British Isles
   2. Category:Political parties in the British Isles
   3. Category:Political movements of the British Isles
2. Proposed deletion of the following article [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics in the British Isles]
   1. Politics in the British Isles

Thanks, --KarlB (talk) 05:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Dakota VT-CLA

I must say, it's nice to see such a healthy interest in the article! Thanks for cleaning up and adding some stuff; I'm not used to articles on plane crashes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Vickers A1E1 Independent, Neubaufahrzeug

So, is there a psychological limitation which prevents you from acknowledging that an IP might be right? You acknowledged it implicitly in both cases, so why bother reverting me in the first place? (Note: While I think your reversals are silly, I am curious to learn your motives.) --91.10.25.203 (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

For the Vickers Independent I restored the Notes section with the reflink code. I took a moment to look over the article, followed up the espionage link, spotted a reference for a claim and took it and added that citation to the Vickers Independent using the <ref> code at which point, if the notes section was not there I would have had to add it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You are just describing what happened. Why did you explicitly revert me, twice, while implicitly agreeing that an empty notes section is silly? Was there really no other way? --91.10.25.203 (talk) 13:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move of Côte d'Ivoire

There is currently a discussion on moving the article Côte d'Ivoire to Ivory Coast. You are being notified since you participated in a previous discussion on this topic. Please join the discussion here if you are interested. TDL (talk) 02:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Edmonton air crash

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

GlaxoSmithKline

Hi, although I don't believe that you have edited the above article before I wondered if you might be willing to add your thoughts in a discussion currently taking place on the Talk page about the article lead, specifically how various controversies should be dealt with and at what length.

I have put a draft version of an expanded lead on the talk page for discussion. No worries if you don't want to participate for whatever reason. Thanks. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Nuclear weapon design

Hello. I disagree with your July 1 edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nuclear_weapon_design&diff=500145647&oldid=498527781

I think it is important for the reader to be able to see the diagram and read the captions while reading the text. With your change, the reader will have to toggle back and forth between the image and the text to do that, something most readers will not do. HowardMorland (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Before my edit the picture image was 700px wide. The policy on image use Wikipedia:IMGSIZE advises "maximum of 500 pixels tall and 400 pixels wide" for accessiblity reasons. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1900–1909

Now that the TfD has closed, see this thread. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Nuffield Organisation

Hi Graeme, being an Oxford business they did use the Z for a short pre-war while but they soon dropped it. You had better change the article name back to the correct one. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 12:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It was used during the war (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1942/1942%20-%202248.html) and post-war eg for the Festival of Britain 1951 - http://www.flickr.com/photos/32705854@N04/4721877406/ and in other writing on the subject this for instance (though being OUP they might be holding out) so perhaps its a case of that's how they spelt it.GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Graeme, the last one is OUP USA! If you have gone to the trouble of finding those examples you must have found many many more that use S. I'm going to have to fix that picture gallery that you have deleted a lot of images from. You must spend so much time looking at aircraft you didn't see the link between the items? Eddaido (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I seem to be able to find more contemporary zeds The Motor of 1957, this tome is generally "z" but punctillious to observe the "s" when it appears in the bibliography. As to the gallery, I'm not a fan of large ones and see the benefit of commons categories in many cases. If a reader is expected to draw a conclusion from pictures, then I'd rather it was spelt out for them in text. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's a list of occurrences in display advertising in The Times

Display Advertising The Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund. The Times (London, England), Friday, Jul 25, 1941; pg. 2; Issue 48987. (223 words)

Display Advertising The Nuffield Organisation. The Times (London, England), Tuesday, Nov 30, 1943; pg. 2; Issue 49716. (43 words)

Display Advertising Display Advertising. The Times (London, England), Thursday, May 24, 1945; pg. 3; Issue 50150. (87 words)

Display Advertising Nuffield Products. The Times (London, England), Monday, Jun 11, 1945; pg. 3; Issue 50165. (110 words)

Display Advertising Nuffield Products. The Times (London, England), Monday, Jul 30, 1945; pg. 2; Issue 50207. (122 words)

Display Advertising Nuffield Organisation. The Times (London, England), Friday, Aug 31, 1945; pg. 6; Issue 50235. (74 words)

Display Advertising Nuffield Products. The Times (London, England), Thursday, Sep 13, 1945; pg. 6; Issue 50246. (71 words)

Display Advertising The Nuffield Organisation. The Times (London, England), Monday, Oct 01, 1945; pg. 8; Issue 50261. (19 words)

Display Advertising Alexander Duckham & Co., Ltd. The Times (London, England), Wednesday, Jan 23, 1946; pg. 2; Issue 50357. (52 words)

Display Advertising Alexander Duckham & Co., Ltd. The Times (London, England), Monday, Feb 04, 1946; pg. 3; Issue 50367. (59 words)

Display Advertising Nuffield Products. The Times (London, England), Thursday, Feb 07, 1946; pg. 3; Issue 50370. (88 words)

Display Advertising National Association Of Boy's Clubs. The Times (London, England), Friday, May 17, 1946; pg. 7; Issue 50454. (602 words)

Display Advertising Morris Motors Limited. The Times (London, England), Wednesday, Sep 04, 1946; pg. 9; Issue 50547. (263 words)

Display Advertising Nuffield Organisation. The Times (London, England), Wednesday, Jan 08, 1947; pg. 2; Issue 50653. (148 words)

Display Advertising The Nuffield Organisation. The Times (London, England), Monday, Feb 03, 1947; pg. 4; Issue 50675. (156 words)

Display Advertising Morris. The Times (London, England), Wednesday, Mar 12, 1947; pg. 3; Issue 50707. (72 words)

Display Advertising The Nuffield Organisation. The Times (London, England), Tuesday, Apr 08, 1947; pg. 3; Issue 50729. (78 words)

Display Advertising The Nuffield Organisation. The Times (London, England), Tuesday, Jul 22, 1947; pg. 3; Issue 50819. (121 words)

Display Advertising Nuffield Products. The Times (London, England), Saturday, Aug 16, 1947; pg. 6; Issue 50841. (94 words)

Moving onto the little display of the products with notes of their engines, have you seen the old lay-out I've now put on the talk page? The four cars on the left share one monocoque body (with an extension to the front of the 6 cylinder cars - the half). They share two engines. The four on the right have separate bodies and chassis and the 4 cars have 3 separate engines (they are all by then obsolescent). The one in the middle, the Minor shares at least its monocoque body design if not the whole body with the four cars on the left. If a reader is interested enough in the subject I'd have thought they would work it out for themselves following the heading note. If you think they need the list as well below it in the manner set out on the talk page do you mind just confirming it? Using the gallery as I did the brand name duplication becomes superfluous - do you agree? Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

my examination of the Times archive seems to show that the s version was used in adverts post war to about 1948/9, therafter the Z version reappears through to 1960. There are two post-1960 references to "Organisation" in advertising but these seem to be by non-Nuffield entities referring to the group.The gallery looks better for your work - tighter and to the point. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Then I'd better admit my same research showed that on balance the organization itself more often used Z in display advertisements in The TImes so I'll quit my dispute with you on that. Going back to the gallery, how much explanation should it receive? Eddaido (talk) 10:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Norfolk mortars

Thanks for the tweaks to the Cley and SSSI articles, who would have guessed there was an article on the Yarmouth attack? With respect to the mortar tweak, do you have a ref I could add in the admittedly unlikely event that someone points out that my source doesn't say what type? If you don't have anything RS, doesn't matter, I don't think it will be queried, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Graeme, I don't doubt you for a moment, but I've been asked to source things that are absolutely obvious before now, so just doing the belt and braces bit Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, I see you're editing the North Norfolk Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest article, which is currently at Milhist's A-class review. We welcome any articles at our A-class review that are tagged for Milhist ... and then some! ... but it does put us in the awkward position that sometimes we're reviewing something we don't know beans about. If you were planning to review this at FAC anyway, or even if not, we'd appreciate your review at A-class, and then you can just link your review when it gets to FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 15:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

British Eagle

I asked administrator The Bushranger to protect the article from IP vandals. An IP reverted your last edit and I undid it. The article is a glaring example of citation overkill. Just under 3 years ago, it had a total of 11. Now its close to 200. They were done by IPs for the most part and cleaning them up is going to be hell. Just looking at the edit box gives me a headache....William 21:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. As I said, I can talk to a registered editor but dealing with ips....Editing the article isn't easy I'll admit, so it's a case of inching forward. I suspect there is a lot of duplication in the referencing. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Accidents involving Douglas aircraft

Hi Graeme. I see you have re-named the article 1948 Lutana crash. Thanks - I was planning to do that myself after I have significantly expanded the article. In this diff User:MilborneOne makes a very good point that titles should name these aircraft Douglas DC-4 etc. I followed his request when I created the new title 1950 Australian National Airways Douglas DC-4 crash. Dolphin (t) 06:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Икарус Оркан

Thank you very much for your help in writing articles for Wikipedija, your updates will contribute much to the quality of articles. When you have time to pass through the other articles I have written so far and improve them. Yours faithfully D.J.Basić--Dusanbasic (talk) 07:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

HP O/100

well, if somebody said I was the father of the heavy bomber I'd ask for a paternity test. But seriously, I thought that munitions were one of your fields: surely there are standard bomb sizes? 100lbs is what Barnes says....and I know if I ferret around I'll find a reference to 107lb bombs. On the subject of munitions, I've recently done a bit to the article on Dennistoun Burney, which could do with some attention from somebody with more knowledge of guns & shells than I have...fancy a go? TheLongTone (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I suspect the truth, if there is a truth, is that a bomb of around 100lb or so is meant. I left the note as someone else might read the source and then think about editing it. That there is also 40 years between the design of the O/100 and HP's memories might cast doubt - though the 75 ft square shed seems quite precise. As to Dennistoun Burney, I don't think I've touched the article since 2005, and its no longer on my watchlist, but I didn't know about the Flight archive then, or other sources. I'll drop by. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

There are referencs in Barnes to it dropping 112lb bombs. So it seems to be a matter of a loosely formulated initial spec. I'll have a look & clear it up....sometime. I've a nasty feeling in my water that I'm about to get overly involved with the R100 article, and I've left Sir Frederick stranded in 1919. I'm afraid I'm not the most ordered of editors.TheLongTone (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

De Havilland VENOM

Hi,

On the [article] concerning the DH Venom, I provided an external link to my blog with pictures I took from a museum. My link is systematically deleted by admins - Can you please explain why it should be a possible COI ? I think it is my last contribution to Wiki as I am really wasting my time editing content that will be deleted.

Cheers,

tonio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toniosky (talk • contribs) 16:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikify

Hi, just to let you know that Template:Wikify has been deprecated and so more specific tags should be used instead, such as Template:Underlinked, Template:Dead end, Template:Cleanup etc. Thanks! Del_♉sion23 (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

78th Fighter Group

I've been looking at your edits to the 78th Fighter Group article and liked the shortening you did there (and a semihemidemi Barnstar for these edits). I have been shy of doing this on image captions after having editors with billions and billions of edits revert them, apparently on the theory that the full caption on Wikimedia is the only thing that is allowed when images are inserted into articles.

That being said, I don't agree with your elimination of the streamer images for awards and campaigns of the group. Your reason for the change was that images are disproportionate. It seems to me that in that case the appropriate action would be to resize the images to a proportionate size. So I have reverted your edit and invite you to size them to what you believe is proportionate.

Don't think this is snark. I really am interested in what size is appropriate for streamers awarded to USAF units. I think the graphic of the streamer enhances the article. (And I am aware of the parallel disagreement concerning whether ribbons should be displayed for individuals.) The alternatives I have seen on other articles on United States Air Force units have been to insert the image for the ribbon in the infobox. This is inappropriate because USAF units are awarded streamers, not ribbons. (Aside: I understand the equivalent for campaigns for UK units is to inscribe the battle/campaign on their colours). I have also seen the image for the streamer in infoboxes, but to make them fit the infoboxes, the images are reduced to a point that they are not distinguishable one from the other. Lineagegeek (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Can't say that I disagree with what you posted on my talk page. I'm currently working my way up through fighter groups assigned to Air Defense Command, so I won't hit 78 for a while, but what do you think of the resizing of streamers on 32d Air Expeditionary Group?

--Lineagegeek (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Keepitimpartial

Keepitimpartial is accusing you of being my sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rajmaan. I listed all of my socks on my userpage and made it clear that they were in line with policy on keeping socks.Rajmaan (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

History of the Great War

Would "See also" be better under "Further Reading"?Keith-264 (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough.Keith-264 (talk) 07:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Giffard Le Quesne Martel

Hi, I see we are both working on this somewhat overlooked military pioneer at the same time. I'm more interested in his work on bridging than anything else and hope to be adding something on this in the near future. QThought (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

At least Charles Inglis has a decent writeup on Wiki. I've trawled the London Gazette for Martel and will post the referenced entries in a British Army Ranks subarticle on his wikipage next week. QThought (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

New section on Chieftain talk page Israeli/UK design co-operation

• Hi Graeme. I ve created a new section on the chieftain talk page re early Israeli/UK co-operation on the design. Would like your thoughts. Ive also left a similar message on Hohums page, I respect you lads regarding your armour knowledge. Any thoughts would be welcome. Happy new year! Irondome (talk) 06:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)