Welcome to roadsat.com on July 10 2009.
This is an internet experiment running to monitor browsing habbits of individuals through wikipedia contents.

User talk:Grant65

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
I am busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. For more urgent matters, please send me an e-mail.

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them:

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you feel like it, you may leave a note at the new user log too. Mintguy (T) 16:38, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Older posts have been archived to: User talk:Grant65 (archive).

Contents

[edit] Rfc

You are invited to a discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Quizimodo.--Gazzster (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Air HQ Western Desert

As a courtesy I am advising you that in a discussion on the above in my Talk Page I have referred to a comment you made in the Operation Battleaxe Talk Page regarding the use of "RAF". I thought you might be interested. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 09:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Many Happy Returns

Happy Birthday Grant,

I hope everything is OK,

Regards,

Dave

Wild Surmise (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Four Policemen

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Four Policemen, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Four Policemen. Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Milhist coordinators election has started

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28. --ROGER DAVIES talk 22:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Commonwealth Aces, and general irritation at wiki's limitations.

Don't fear, I come in peace.

Having looked over some of the articles it appears the Aussie elements are seriously neglected, which is quite outrageous when you consider their achievements. Consider that the majority scored their kills early in the war, against a Luftwaffe fighter arm that was well trained. Then consider the overly publicised American aces that scored their kills against a rapidly deteriorating Luftwaffe, that were just kids with a few hours flying time. At present we have only 30 odd. I propose putting together a small task force to right these wrongs. How about it? Dapi89 (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Four Policemen

An editor has nominated Four Policemen, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four Policemen and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] (NZ)

If I can play devil's advocate, I think the correct form is "No. X Squadron RNZAF" and it is incorrect to include "(NZ)" or "(New Zealand)". The Article XV squadrons article presents a clear picture. Under the terms of Article XV, these were just as much RNZAF squadrons as those that served in the Pacific. The only difference in principle was that they were formed for service under RAF operational control. 75 Squadron was different in that it was formed before Article XV and was specifically an RAF unit, transferred to the RNZAF after the war. Cheers, Grant 01:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have seen a large amount of WW 2 vintage "bumph", including pilot's logs, squadron paperwork and other forms, both from the RAF and the RNZAF which uses the formula "X(NZ) Squadron" and sometimes X(New Zealand) Squadron". Very rarely does one see "No. X Squadron RNZAF" for the article XV units. It might not have been strictly correct "form" but those who did the paperwork at the time seemed to think it was. Have a look at this site Warbird site and this RNZAF aircraft. Gerard Morris in Spitfire, the New Zealand Story (Auckland, NZ: Reed Books, 2000. ISBN 0 7900 0696 0) goes into the subject in some detail and comes to similar conclusions Cheers.Minorhistorian (talk) 12:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The point is not what they were called at the time but what they actually were and how we as an encylopedia put that across. No. 258 Squadron RAF had no "brackets", while No. 75 (New Zealand) Squadron RAF was officially called that. Both were RAF units predominantly staffed by NZers. Similarly, the Article XV squadrons were officially RNZAF units, whether or not the RNZAF chose/chooses to see them that way, and using "XXX(NZ) Squadron" in relation to them does not adequately make that point. As well as being technically incorrect: see, for example, the RAF official histories like No. 487 Squadron RNZAF. Cheers, Grant 15:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The point is that this is what they called themselves at the time! An encyclopaedia, if it has any claims to be authoritative, must take historical precedent into account, otherwise it is rewriting or bending history to reflect it's own concepts. Yes, "XXX(NZ) Squadron" might be "technically incorrect", but to dismiss primary documentation, which was written at the time, as being wrong is also wrong. Rewriting the Article XV squadrons page to adequately reflect your thoughts about this might be worthwhile, but it also should be emphasised that the units more often than not referred to themselves as "XXX(NZ) Squadron (or "XXX(RAAF) Squadron for that matter). CheersMinorhistorian (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, I think the articles are in the right locations ("No. 48X Squadron RNZAF") and it's right that a common name "48X(NZ) Sqn" at the time is mentioned in the first sentence. My main problem is with the guff at the bottom of all the articles on RNZAF Art. XV squadrons, which is both inaccurate and better dealt with in the RNZAF article and the Art. XV article.

As an aside, I guess what we see here, in part, are the different attitudes between Kiwis and Aussies both then and now. Grant 01:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah HA! There I have you, cause I'm both an Australian and a New Zealander, so I don't have a "different attitude" except maybe the colonial bolshiness that the Poms don't like! If you look at the No. 486 Squadron RNZAF page you'll see that "486(NZ) Squadron" was used for the intro and at the start of the History section, after that it is 486 Sqn. or plain 486. Once the context has been set most people know that all are referring to the same subject. (The other problem I have with "No. XXX Squadron RNZAF" is that it is cumbersome and doesn't read well. You would be surprised at how off-putting it is for a lay-person, who (for example) doesn't know much about "official" or "correct" RAF parlance, to be constantly reading such titles.)
I would be the first to say that the guff on the Article XV units needs stern revision. The trick is being able to provide a lucid translation...personally I've spread myself a bit thin so I'm going to concentrate on finishing some of the other jobs I've started in Wikipedia. Regards. Minorhistorian (talk) 11:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
But who do you support in the cricket and rugby? ;-)[User:Grant65|Grant]] 05:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, since you asked...I used to support NZ in rugby. Not any more! Three rugby World Cups ago the reaction here in New Zealand to the All Blacks losing to the Springboks in the final was so bloody pathetic and childish I lost all interest in the national team, and I've never regained it because the same thing's happened twice over again. Instead I really enjoy the NRL - I came from Parramatta so the Eels http://www.parraeels.com.au/ are my sentimental favourites...
As for the cricket? I was brought up with my dad's stories about watching "The Don", Keith Miller, Lindwall, Benaud, Stackpole etc in their prime; I got to watch Lillee, Thomson Marsh and the Chappells when I was knee high to an ant...so I (mumble) still quietly root for Aus...but I don't mind cheering NZ success as well. ;-)Minorhistorian (talk) 12:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marseilles #17

Indeed it is Wübbe that states that the Hurricane I V7775 was piloted by Flt.Lt. Byers and that he was taken POW by the Germans. Unfortunately both Hans Ring and Jochen Prien in their JG 27 chronicles have a gab in the early September 1941 timeframe. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur in your opinion! Let's take it out. Maybe it should be left in as a Wiki comment so that once more information materializes we still remember what was stated before. I hope that Wübbe did not make this up and some other source confirms his view. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I checked Kurowski, he states that the Hurricane was on reconnaissance duties. Does this add value? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page

I added you to the list of maintaining editors on Marseille's talk page. Hope you don't mind.MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Doubts

In the article is a sentence "Moreover, Brown lists several occasions on which Marseille could not have downed as many aircraft as claimed". I sort dislike this generalising statement because it leaves room for speculation on the degree of doubt. If possible may I ask you to reference in the table which claims are in doubt, similarly to the 15 September 1942. I feel that we have gone through a lot of work on the table and this sentence sort of does not fit in. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, fine with me. But do you agree that we should be a bit more precise? MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help

Chuq is threatening to have me blocked, simply because I am reverting the words association football to association football (soccer). I tried explaining that the soccer tag must be added as it's what most Australians call it, not football. If I'm blocked I need you to help prove what I was doing was not 'valdalisim'. 121.219.30.130 (talk) 04:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring your false "Australian English" argument (a significant amount of the media and supporters use "football" - yes, many do use "soccer" too - but not exclusively - and this is a discussion for another page), it's all detailed on the anon's talk page:
  • My reasoning is that having such a lengthy/overly descriptive term in a heading or template is messy and unnecessary - there is only one type of "association football".
  • I explained that because both "soccer" and "football" are used in Australia, the Wikipedia wide standard of "association football" or "football (soccer)" applies.
  • He claimed he already discussed it, when his contribution history showed he had not.
  • He claimed "Until then I WILL keep changing it." which is confrontational and indicates he is not willing to discuss the changes.
  • His previous edits such as this are entirely provocational, again showing he is not willing to work with other editors.
  • When I commented about this, he completely ignored me and continued to revert the articles.
  • I attempted to gain consensus at locations such as Talk:Association football and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football (soccer) in Australia but didn't get a reply.
  • While I did revert the articles on some occasions, I also attempted to compromise (in this example, added a lead sentence with "Association football (soccer)" to the section, so that the heading itself wouldn't have to use a lengthy/descriptive term), but the anon ignored it and continued to edit the heading.
  • My warning template was specifically about the disruption (i.e. continual mass changes affecting a large number of articles/templates without discussion), not so much about the content. At least it prompted the anon to actually post on talk pages about it, something he was completely unwilling to do before, so it did have the desired affect.
  • 95% of his contribution history has been changing "Association football" to "Association football (soccer)", which does match the editing patterns of a repeatedly banned user. Despite only being here for two days he also knew exactly where to go to find someone who shares his views. I admit this is a big assumption on my part and I may be wrong, but the pieces all fit together.
Again, if you wish to discuss the actual content of the edit, I suggest somewhere more appropriate such as the pages I mentioned above or similar. -- Chuq (talk) 11:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Association football articles

In response to your comment I'll just copy what I have written before:

"Soccer" fans are not "trying to change the word usage" in Australia. They have always called it that. It is just that now, there are more fans of the sport, it is talked about more, and people pay more attention to it. Media: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Supporter/fan sites: Melb Syd SA Tas General Even BigFooty, an AFL-focused site, has forums called Football board and Football Australia which are about association football.

I'm not claiming everyone calls it "football"; I'm not claiming only association football can call it that; I'm not claiming no-one can call it soccer. I'm just claiming that "everyone calls it soccer here" and "no-one calls it football here" are totally false.

-- Chuq (talk) 07:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(By the way, I presume that the anonymous IP who posted on my talk page posing as you was actually you?) -- Chuq (talk) 07:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Western New Guinea

Can you help me? Is the Western New Guinea campaign the same as the Papua campaign? Regards --Newm30 (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, will have to ask further questions from US experts on what they are referring to. Regards --Newm30 (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Étaples Mutiny

Hi Grant, From WP:MOSDATE

If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are 
reasons for changing it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic.

Because this article is about British Empire forces, it should use the "International" format? I'm not going to reverrt again, can we talk about this? Pleaase reply here, I'll be watching this apge. Happy editing TINYMARK 19:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You have new messages
Hello, Grant65. You have new messages at TinyMark's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TINYMARK 21:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pacific War

A discussion started about the use of "viewed" or "portrayed" in this article [8]. We probably need to find a source to back up which language should be used. Cla68 (talk) 02:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Cesare2a.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Hi Grant65!
We thank you for uploading Image:Cesare2a.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Leander class template

Hi, can you please have a look at my objections to your initial edit. Some are against conventions and really need discussing. Others are more questionable but I'd like you to consider what I've said there. Thanks. Benea (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] P-40

1. I never disputed the statement of German pilots overclaiming. 2. Why would I want to find a reference relevant to P-40 pilots in North Africa? Did the Germans fly P-40s? No! Did I ever write something about DAF-pilots overclaiming into the article? Again, no! All I did was telling the readers the well documented fact that overclaiming was by no means a German specialty. An impression the reader can get if the "200%" is not put in the right context.Markus Becker02 (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

One of the means to "flesh out" or elaborate a contentious point is to provide a qualifying statement. In publishing this is often a "pull-quote" or even an "insert box" which provides background, context or illustration of a point. Since the issue here may require this type of development, consider for the reader/editor, a note within a reference citation or an "invisible" note, the former being more accessible to the public. FWiW, providing attribution will be crucial in order to establish the facts. Bzuk (talk) 11:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-08 Curtiss P-40

Grant, an informal mediation has been opened at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-08 Curtiss P-40 with your name submitted as one of the participants to the dispute. I am the mediator. The process should be relatively painless and hopefully solved quickly. Do you want to join us? Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Was there a No. 19 Squadron RAAF?

Hi Grant, Do you know if the No. 19 Squadron formed by the Dutch in Australia in 1945 was a fourth NEI/RAAF Squadron? The AWM mentions it in the same context as No. 18, 119 and 120 Squadrons at: [9] and [10] (a self-published and somewhat unreliable source) states that it was formed "with RAAF support" and the book 'The Fourth Ally' (which is about the Dutch in Australia) also states that the RAAF supported the squadron. The Squadron was formed from the two Dutch transport units in Australia, and I'm unclear if they were purely Dutch, Dutch/US or Dutch/Australian units. Do you anything about these units? Thanks Nick Dowling (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IPL Sponsorship

Hi Grant, I have added a proposal to Talk:Indian Premier League#Sponsorship for how to resolve the question of the listing/non-listing of sponsorship details for the IPL. Considering that you are the only non-anonymous editor to have shown a significant interest in this topic, I thought you might like to take a look and offer some feedback. I will also post a notice at WT:CRIC about this issue. Juwe (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Civilian casualties on Pacific Islands

Have you ever seen data on Civilian casualties on Pacific Islands?--Woogie10w (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I picked this up at the local library this afternoon and had some Afghan kababs aftertwords:
Author is Poyer, Lin; Falgout, Suzanne; Carucci, Laurence Marshall
Title is The Typhoon of War: Micronesian Experiences of the Pacific War ISBN 0824821688
Publisher: Univ of Hawaii Pr, 2001--Woogie10w (talk) 00:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Russell Brown Desert Warriors

Very interesting book. Thanks for pointing this out. It is very complementary to the other books I have read. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, yes I ordered it from Australia and compared it with the JG 27 chronicles.
  • Prien, Jochen & Rodeike, Peter & Stemmer, Gerhard. Messerschmidt Bf 109 im Einsatz bei Stab und I./Jagdgeschwader 27 1939 - 1945 (in German). struve-druck, Eutin. ISBN 3-923457-46-4
It's a series (roughly 1500 pages) in which in great detail, the fate of every aircraft, pilot is stated. The level of detail includes blown tires on takeoff, undercarriage failures, engine problems, maintenance issues, degree of combat damage, etc. Brown states in his book on page 162 that German records only report losses when the pilot was killed in action or killed in flying accident. This is clearly not true. Regarding the 57th Fighter Group, go to the page 152 on August 14th 1942, you will find the information regarding this bomber escort mission.
I quote directly "260 Squadron was actively engaged for the next ten days, and on 14 August, twelve of their aircraft, with another six from the 57th US Fighter Group, escorted Bostons to bomb Fulka station"
But I also read in his Book that on some occasions US pilots were integrated into DAF squadrons. Back to 15 September, now that I have read both sides of the story I tend to think that the level of confusion was immense and that in the heat of battle both sides made human errors in verifying claims. I think that those pilots on both sides made their claims in best faith. The only fault on behalf of the JG 27, as Brown states, is not to have counted the wrecks on the ground. But from what I read in Brown’s book this was not required by either side. And as Brown also states, finding a wreck some days later did not imply that the claim was confirmed. So the verification system fails, if a witness confirms what the claiming pilot is stating, and in the heat of battle this is too error prone. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree, by no means do I want to create the impression that JG 27 is not guilty, so to speak. The fact, that the other side also has some questionable claims is irrelevant to what JG 27 claimed. It is not a counterbalancing issue (my opinion). However to me this proves that presenting instances of over-claiming is a very difficult thing. It easily gets the touch; better the reader gets the impression that the effected unit, person is guilty of deliberately having exaggerated their claims. I am personally still of the opinion that in most cases the claims have been filed in best believe that they are correct. This holds true for both sides, at least in Africa. From a German perspective I know of two individuals who have a questionable track record. These are Kurt Welter and Helmut Wick. In these instances their German comrades have cast doubt on their claims. I think we discussed this before. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] IL2

You wrote: happened across Il2 Sturmovik 1946, which includes the first three games, going half-price and snapped it up. I have been too busy to install, let alone play it so far. I also need a joystick but am reluctant to pay the big bucks for a Cougar, Saitek or CH. What do you have and what would you suggest? Do you use pedals etc too? Cheers, Grant talk 15:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I use something called a "thrustmaster" i found on Amazon, it works fairly well, I think it was like $35, I can't afford rudder pedals. All twist type joysticks eventually wear out to where they start pulling to the right which causes you to have to increasingly adjust rudder trim etc. Mine lasted about six months before it started doing this, but it still isnt' nearly as bad as my logitech one was.

I think you can get the current version of Il2 1946 for about $20 on Amazon, you want to get the latest version because several errors with the physics were corrected and many flight models added over the years. Online play is done on player controlled servers through sites like Hyperlobby. Usually quasi realistic arenas based on different historical eras.

As a Sim Il2 is still state of the art, I would say the realism is still impressive, both on flying characteristics and engine management as well as damage physics and ballistics, though probably once it is replaced by something better it will seem very quaint and archaic.

Playing online is very hard, but the P-40 has a relatively good reputation in the mid-war settings, contrary to what some folks expect. It's often the most popular or second most popular fighter on North Africa / Med, Russian front, or Pacific theatre maps set in 1941-1943


[edit] Three Came Home

Hi Grant, how's things? Yep, I know what you mean about the Aussie accents in the film! They weren't machine-gunned - that's a bit of Hollywood licence - but were sent off to Sandakan a few days later, so the grim end result was the same. The film also separates Agnes and her husband into completely different camps to up the drama quotient, when in real life they were just down the road from each other and saw (but couldn't necessarily speak to) each other regularly. I chuckle at the scene with the three kids going to Suga's house - all ah-gee-whizz-American-as-apple-pie when the real three were all British. But then again, Hollywood and historical veracity rarely go hand in hand (U-571, anyone?). Parts were filmed in Sandakan, and Agnes Keith makes a brief cameo appearance, so it's worth the three quid-odd I stumped up at Amazon for it.

My research into the camp is cracking on and I've met (or chatted to) quite a few of the ex-internees (including your Mr Quartermaine, so thanks for that lead). I've hooked up with Dr Bernice Archer here, and Dr Christina Twomey of Monash University is joining us. All I need to do now is get some funding so that I can concentrate on it full-time, rather than dribbling along in evenings and weekends and spare moments when I should be working. By the way - have you read The Duke: A Hero's Hero at Sandakan. Captain Lionel Matthews GC, MC? It's by David Matthews, Capt Matthews' son, just published. Not an easy read but what an incredibly brave man. Cheers, Bec Jasper33 (talk) 08:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] JWC

Hi, I think you should check at JWC. User 60.42.252.205 has done a major revision. [[11]] I put back many deleted stuff but maybe it need a complete reversion...--Flying tiger (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pacific War

Hi Grant. If you have some time, please take a look at Allied submarine usage in the Pacific War. Thanks. Bebestbe (talk) 03:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation - are we done?

You have been involved in mediation at: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-08 Curtiss P-40. Discussion has subsided, and I think that the concerns have been resolved by removing the contested issues around over claiming to an article about that subject. Is there any need to continue or should we close this process? Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Airfield Defence Guards

Hi Grant,

Regarding the ADG article, the term is a mustering title applying to airmen holding the rank of Aircraftman to Warrant Officer. Ground Defence Officers are commissioned members holding the ranks of Pilot Officer to (currently) Group Captain, although the highest ranking position in the RAAF within category for a GRDEFO is Wing Commander.

The description of ADGs as non-commissioned members is taken directly from the current RAAF recruitment webpage.

Cheers,

Stepat (talk) 06:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RAAF Museum, DYK and Australia in WW2

Hi Grant, I've got three issues for your consideration:

  1. Have you seen that the URL to the RAAF museum website has changed again, rendering all the links to it invalid? It's now at http://www.airforce.gov.au/raafmuseum/ and the old links redirect to the main RAAF website rather than the museum's new URL.
  2. Great work with the No. 466 Sqn article. It would now qualify for a DYK entry...
  3. I'm seeking comments on Military history of Australia during World War II and would be very interested in any thoughts you might have on the article (eg, is it too long, too unfocused, too Army-centric, etc). Regards, Nick Dowling (talk) 01:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No. 466 Squadron RAAF DYK

Hi. I've reviewed your DYK submission for the article No. 466 Squadron RAAF, and made a comment on it at the submissions page. Please feel free to reply or comment there. Cheers, Olaf Davis | Talk 15:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Cheers, Olaf Davis | Talk 15:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply - I've replied again on the DYK submissions page (and approved the hook for DYK). Best, Olaf Davis | Talk 16:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK - No. 466 Squadron

Updated DYK query On 7 July 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article No. 466 Squadron RAAF, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Mifter (talk) 03:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] email

SatuSuro 03:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Rheinübung‎

Yoou moved this a while ago; I've moved it back, for the reasons given on the talk page. Xyl 54 (talk) 12:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Captions for aviation project group subjects/images

Hi Grant, I know that you incorporate a lot of detail into your captions, and you may be interested in the comments recently made towards formulating recommendations for captions in the group. Please see: Captions discussions. FWiW, I am not going to alter your captions, but you might notice that the direction that is prevalent is to use the caption conservatively and only provide a brief descriptor. Bzuk (talk) 12:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Bear River Massacre and the American Civil War

I noticed that you removed references to the U.S. Civil War from the Bear River Massacre article. I'm assuming that you didn't notice the year this event happened (1863), nor have you joined in the discussion on the talk page of this article that goes into great depth about what "war" it was really connected to.

I'll admit that the American Indian Wars cover a nebulous span of history and are not nearly so well defined. The U.S. Civil War, on the other hand, is much more specific in terms of when it happened, although a military confrontation in the western territories was rather unusual.

I, for one, don't think the issue is nearly as clear cut as you seemed to have indicated with the edits that you have made to this article. Furthermore, this engagement isn't really recognized as happening in any military histories of the Indian Wars, although that may be by omission due to ignorance than anything else. It is, however, listed as a significant engagement by Union forces in the U.S. Civil War.

Rather than getting into an edit war over this, I would prefer this to have been discussed on the talk page and some sort of consensus reached... or at least somehow acknowledging that it technically fits the definitions of both the Indian Wars and the Civil War, even though I'll openly admit that the Shoshone were not necessarily political nor military allies of the Confederacy during this era.

The labeling and categorization of things like this can be difficult at best, particularly when they don't fit into neat categories. I can find citations of this event being listed with other U.S. Civil War battles... and that information is already in the biliography. Can you find something from a prominent historian that refutes this claim? --Robert Horning (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] British Raj

On Wikipedia the description British Raj is used for the states of British colonial India. During the colonial period the colony was called India in all sources that I have seen outside of Wikipedia. It was India as a member of the League of Nations and in the summer Olympics. Can you tell me if the term British Raj was actually used or is it an invention of modern Pakistani nationalists engaged in a blatant POV push? Regards.--Woogie10w (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

A problem may come about if somebody insists on using British Raj rather than the Indian Empire. Some modern day Pakistani nationalists are engaged in a POV push on Wikipedia to remove the name India from the pre 1947 state.--Woogie10w (talk) 11:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yamashita's Gold

I know you have history with user JimBobUSA on this topic. I was wondering if you could take a look at a new dispute and give your input. I have attempted to update the entry on the Roxas v. Marcos legal matter. JimBob concluded with a statistical analysis saying the case was tossed out in 1998 for insufficient evidence. Being a lawyer that had read the 1998 Hawaiian Supreme Court decision, I corrected his interpretation of the court's ruling. The court found there was insufficient evidence to support a damage award based upon the chamber full of gold, but the Court directed to enter judgment in favor of the plaintiff (Roxas' Golden Budha Corp.) on the claim of conversion of the golden buddha and 17 bars of gold, and remanded the matter for a trial on the limited issue of the value of the golden buddha and 17 bars.

He reversed the edit, I tried to explain why his interpretation was erroneous. That just started an edit war...

Since then I have provided him with cites to contemporaneous news reports of the trial on the value of the gold and the fact that the GBC has a $13,000,000 judgment. Still that was not good enough. Then I cited statements by the US Solicitor General, the Government of the Philippines and the US Supreme Court all recognizing the fact that the GBC has a judgment as a result of stolen treasure.

I am a wiki neophyte, but I'm right and stubborn. This JimBob is wrong, and acts intellectually dishonest. He must understand he is wrong, but is concealing facts based upon some unknown agenda.

67.120.59.46 (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Silliness at dampier

It had been talked about at the wa noticeboard but no one had the presence of mind to talk about it and then remove it! SatuSuro 15:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Date linking deprecated

Hi. I should have said. It's not my rule but that of WP:MOS. The word is gradually getting out there. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)

The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Message from WikiProject Punk music

Hello!

You may be interested to know that WikiProject Punk music has recently undergone a major revitalization. Please visit the project page to see our new look and check out some of our helpful new features, such as the Assessment Department and the Collaboration of the week. There are also a number of tasks on our Things to do page that you may be interested in helping with.

We are currently holding a roll call to help gauge how many active project members we have. Please visit the project's talk page and add your signature to the roll sheet to express your continued interest in the project. Also, if you have not already done so, please take a minute to add your name to the Participants page along with a brief summary of your punk-related interests, so that other project members will be better able to collaborate with you. If you do not add your signature to the roll sheet by November 30, 2008 your name will be moved to our list of inactive members. We may also take the liberty of removing the project userbox from your userpage if it appears there, to prevent you from automatically appearing in Category:WikiProject Punk music members. Of course you are free to rejoin the project and re-add the userbox at any time if you would like to become active in the project again.

Thank you and we hope you will continue to support WikiProject Punk music!

You are receiving this message because you have previously identified yourself as a member of WikiProject Punk music, either because your name appears on the Participants page or because you have placed the project userbox on your user page. As a courtesy, if you have left the project, retired from Wikipedia, or simply no longer wish to be an active project member, please remove the userbox from your user page. This will remove you from Category:WikiProject Punk music members and help the project to keep its active membership list up-to-date.

--IllaZilla (talk) 00:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Major changes to the Unfree Labor page

You requested to be informed on the article's Talk page whenever someone was considering substantive changes to the Unfree labour page. I am, and I wish to resolve things quickly and amicably- please see the article's Talk page at your earliest convenience. -Toptomcat (talk) 07:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)

The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Common name

Hi Grant. The issue with Tiliqua rugosa is that there are multiple regions with different 'common' names. The naming convention you linked refers to persons and things, this skink is neither of these. The convention WP:TOL suggests that the species name be used when there is this kind of ambiguity - emboldening one regional name is misleading. I originally spent a fair bit of time finding which three or four were the most frequently used informal names, please restore that. cygnis insignis 01:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)

The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Copyright of AWM pictures

Hi Grant. Do you know if pictures stored at the Australian War Memorial or its website are automatically owned by the AWM and PD under criterion E of PD-Australia. I didn't think that this was the case, but User:Abraham, B.S. thinks that I should be able to use them on Military career of Keith Miller - discussion User_talk:YellowMonkey#Military_career_of_Keith_Miller_photographs. These photos include photos taken in the UK, in the 1940s, where a 70 years after death rule applies, but he is suggesting that an AWM stored photo falls under PD-Aus even though all of these photos were taken in the UK. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Australia newsletter,December 2008

The December 2008 issue of the WikiProject Australia newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. This message was delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 07:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Happy New Year!

Dear Grant65, I hope you had a wonderful New Year's Day, and that 2009 brings further success and happiness! ~ YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] More soccer vandalisim

Soccer people are still doing there best to not use the agreed term football (soccer). They have created a link stub that says simply "football" Australia-footy-bio-stub. Also they have taken control of the category australian football bio stugs. Please help.

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)

The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)

The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Football (soccer)

People are yet again attempting to rename the articles football. A new debate was listed here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football_(soccer)_in_Australia#User_60.224.0.121_and_football_.28soccer.29_edits Please help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.0.121 (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

  • People are not attempting to rename articles at all, but your input into the discussion would be welcome Grant. Camw (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

yes you are. You have completely ignored the fact it was already agreed on, and have changed it to what you think it "should" be —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.0.121 (talk) 00:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Once something has been discussed does not mean it can never be discussed again, it's not like it was a month or even a year ago that it was "agreed on". You are changing articles and refusing to discuss further which seems pretty disruptive to me. It would be a show of good faith if you would stop making the changes until we have talked about it more? Camw (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Please also note that I am not saying that I am unwilling to compromise 60.224.0.121. I'm just saying that before you go through and change hundreds of articles that a discussion three years after the last one (keeping in mind that consensus can change) wouldn't hurt. Camw (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Camw is claiming a concensious has already gone in favour of his way. If you wish to dispute this you'd better start now as he is about to start naming the articles for renaming to association football. 60.224.2.159 (talk) 03:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal for Pacific Ocean theater of World War II

There is a merge proposal and discussion on the talk page of this article. Inputs are welcome. Cla68 (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Use of photo of dead soldiers for Battle of Buna-Gona page

Hi, i noticed you've contributed here Talk:Battle_of_Buna-Gona previously. I've loaded a photograph on the talk page which I think would be useful for the article, however it may be seen as contentious. If you would like to express a view, it would be helpful. Thanks. --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] NowCommons: File:Awm 128387 nadzab.jpg

File:Awm 128387 nadzab.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Awm 128387 nadzab.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Awm 128387 nadzab.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 04:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Grant

Hope you're well. Can I ask you to cast your eye over [12]? I'm not sure how to proceed with deleting the material that our persistent friend keeps inserting. Cheers, Bec Jasper33 (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ooops - sorry, forgot to let you know it had been sorted! BL research is getting very exciting - I have formed a loose alliance with Dr Bernice Archer here in the UK (her PhD was on the internment of civilians by the Japanese) and Dr Christina Twomey of Monash University - I'm meeting Christina for the first time next month for a big discussion with Bernice and we hope to advance the project significantly. The research - such as I can do in evenings and weekends - is going very well indeed, and I have turned up lots of new (ie unpublished!) accounts and camp artefacts and tracked down loads of internees and their families to interview; various people including Prof Bob Reece reckon there's a good book in it - only stumbling block is money for research trips to Sabah and Sarawak and to fund interviewing, transcribing, translations etc. As no doubt you know well, funding is not easy to raise in this economic climate. Don't suppose you know of any likely sources? I'm thinking of trying to tap the Sultan of Brunei given that a few Bruneians were in the camp and he's presumably not short of a bob or two ... Cheers, Bec Jasper33 (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Cheers for that, Grant. I shall bung off some letters - it's only the cost of a few stamps and as they say (who are 'they'?), nothing ventured, nothing gained. Hope your work is going well too. Bec Jasper33 (talk) 09:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Duck Mole

I am writing you because you seem to know much about the subject Australian English vocabulary.

Is the term duck mole used or understood in modern AusEng? I've never heard the term on any Australian nature show.

Would it be safe to assume that Mole Creek, Tasmania and Mole River (New South Wales) were named for their association with this animal, (and not, as in the case of River Mole, Surrey, for being partly subterranian)?

Would it be safe to assume that duck mole was the first English word commonly used to refer to this animal, based on its obvious aptness for the language and basis in Saxon vocabular, compared to modern AusEng "playpus" would have to have been invented by scientists familiar with it's Greek roots? Chrisrus (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


[edit] WW2 Allies

Please don't keep re-listing the Philippines under the United States. I don't want to sound racist but I think the reason why you don't understand is because you're white. What you are doing is really insulting given that it diminishes the contributions of Filipinos to that part of history. The Philippines and the United States has a complex history together and for some Filipinos (like me), it is sometimes really offensive to be attached to that country. While it may be debatable whether or not the Philippines actually had political independence at that time, it may be better to have them separate so that the Philippines' contributions would not be completely ignored.--23prootie (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Grant65"
Personal tools
Visit joltnews for the latest headlines
Visit bloit.com for company information
Geed Media does computer consulting on long island.
This page viewed times. See Logs