User talk:Grant65/Archive Apr08-Oct09

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 TINY MARK 19:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

TINY MARK 21:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific War

A discussion started about the use of "viewed" or "portrayed" in this article [1]. We probably need to find a source to back up which language should be used. Cla68 (talk) 02:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [2] and [3] (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)[reply]

IPL Sponsorship

Hi Grant, I have added a proposal to Talk:Indian Premier League/Archive 1#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)[reply]

Civilian casualties on Pacific Islands

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

JWC

Hi, I think you should check at JWC. User 60.42.252.205 has done a major revision. [[4]] I put back many deleted stuff but maybe it need a complete reversion...--Flying tiger (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

RAAF Museum, DYK and Australia in WW2

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

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.
Great work with the No. 466 Sqn article. It would now qualify for a DYK entry...
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

DYK - No. 466 Squadron

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)[reply]

email

Satu Suro 03:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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! Satu Suro 15:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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!

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) [reply]

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) [reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

File:Cowrapowcamp.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Cowrapowcamp.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 09:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:3 RAR Korea (AWM P01813-449).jpg is now available as Commons:File:3 RAR Korea (AWM P01813-449).jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:AWM SUK12082 Clive Caldwell.jpg is now available as Commons:File:AWM SUK12082 Clive Caldwell.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 11:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi Grant

Hope you're well. Can I ask you to cast your eye over [5]? 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 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) 22:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your Opinion would be appreciated

I would appreciate your comments regarding the use of sources Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Sources for WW2 losses in Asia

Thanks --Woogie10w (talk) 23:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC

Discussion at WW2 Casualties

Please review my post at Talk:World War II casualties#Civilian Casualties in Asia. What is your opinion?--Woogie10w (talk) 21:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for for support. I did purchase the book that was the subject of the dispute. Imperial Japan's World War Two by Werner Gruhl. The author is a retired NASA employee with a lifelong interest in WW2. He has detailed statistics that are his estimates compiled from various sources. I question the validity of the figures. For example, he claims New Zealand lost 16,880 in the Pacific War. The New Zealand war memorial and the CWGC both put New Zealand war dead at 11,900, almost all in North Africa and Italy, their role in the Pacific war was not significant. I will really need help if somebody wants to plug Werner Gruhl’s numbers and engage in a protracted edit war.--Woogie10w (talk) 11:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are people out there that see something in print and believe it to be true, they could even start an edit war and win. That is why I need your support.--Woogie10w (talk) 09:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Buna photo is now at the head of World War II casualties--Woogie10w (talk) 11:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 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) 19:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

East Timor

Hi

You may be able to respond to this inquiry at Talk:World War II casualties#East Timor / Portugal

Thanks--Woogie10w (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations open 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 12 September!
Many thanks, Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 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) 19:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators, Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MILHIST admins

Hi. Since you're an admin and a member of the Military History WikiProject, feel free to list yourself here. Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 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) 00:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<tt>

I think you've probably overlooked that the monospace font size in Firefox is a separate setting (click on the Advanced button next to the main setting). If you've set the non-monospace font size to something large, while leaving the monospace setting at default, then anything set in monospace (<tt>, <code>, <pre>, ...) is likely to look small by comparison. --Zundark (talk) 12:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fixed size fonts

Please check your font settings in Firefox: Tools->Options->Contents->Fonts & Colors->Advanced and make sure they are set correctly or to their defaults. Please don't adjust wiki pages to suit your browser. Thanks. Kbrose (talk) 17:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]