User talk:Grant65/Archive Nov07-Jan08
...
[edit]I used to edit under a different name. But I got fed up with the red tape of being an administrator. We worked heavily together on a certain article when you first came to Wikipedia. Jooler (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- "I will always defend majority practice when it comes to the English language" - well Gernika-Lumo isn't in any way common currency in English is it, but soccer and football are both English words, again it's a different argument. One thing that's just occurred to me regarding second language speakers. The vast majority of USAians have no interest in Association football whatsoever so why should their opinion on the naming of the sport be given more weight than my Dutch friend who speaks excellent English, lives in Switzerland and loves the game? Why does living in the USA make all the difference? If he moved to the USA, would he be counted as a native speaker? Block voting entire countries is simply not scientific. Jooler 05:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)
[edit]The November 2007 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 01:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Drive to the Siegfried Line
[edit]As an antipodean I would appreciate your input on Talk:Drive to the Siegfried Line#Requested move --Philip Baird Shearer 11:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Templates
[edit]There's a template {{British-English}} which is used on the talk page of a number of articles to remind or inform users not to change spellings to American English. I was watching a documentary on TV earlier today about Cane Toads and just now looked at the the Wikipedia article, and noted that the spelling does not follow US standards. Sticking a British English tag on the page might not be appropriate, there is currently a redirect from {{Commonwealth-English}} to {{British-English}}, but I thought perhaps it would be useful to create an {{Australian-English}} template. Jooler 22:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Citations and such
[edit]Hi Grant, thanks for writing. The only thing that I noted was that many of the citations used in the Boomerang article were from one source (including the same page number) in a paragraph and for simplicity, some of them could be combined. Mais c'est la vie... Cheers, or is that G'day, mate [:¬∆ Bzuk 13:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC).
Comment on "Unfree Labor"
[edit]I just made a comment on the article you started about "Unfree Labor" and wanted to draw your attention as it seems like you'd be the person most likely to address it. --Brian Z (talk) 06:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Australia newsletter
[edit]WikiProject Australia publishes a newsletter informing Australian Wikipedians of ongoing events and happenings within the community and the project. This month's newsletter has been published. If you wish to unsubscribe from these messages, or prefer to have the newsletter delivered in full to your talk page, see our subscription page. This notice delivered by BrownBot (talk), at 21:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC).
Hello
[edit]I don't understand. why you revert this.[1] this sentence is wrong. I already explain this. given source only show that annexation is legal or illegal. did not metioned korean involved war crime. inaccurate. until 1938, Japan did not recruit soldier from korean Juice8093 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
one more
[edit]Taiwan was also involved war crime. Taiwan was annexation with Japan in 1895. 15 years early than korea. and According to International Military Tribunal for the Far East, Sentenced to Death : Taiwan (26), Korean (23), Japanese (920) Taiwanese more criminal than ethnic korean. must mention of Taiwan. Thak you.Juice8093 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
About My Changes to Allied Leaders of WWII
[edit]When I first created the article of Allied leaders of World War II was not just to make a list of political and military leaders of nations or governments in exile but also to include the overseas territory of Britain and American such as the Mandate of Palestine or Puerto Rico. Despite being a territory and not a state, the people are still considered leaders. - Mr.NorCal55 (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Administrator role?
[edit]Hi Grant, what do Wikipedia administrators actually do? - is the description at Wikipedia:Administrators accurate in your experience? I think that I could fill the job description on that page and make a positive contribution, but I don't really have the time to participate in the more formal side of things (eg, requests for arbitration, etc) on an consistent basis. I guess my ultimate question is whether it's possible to just stick to keeping an eye on the bits of Wikipedia I'm interested in (mainly military history articles) without being dragged into disputes on topics I'm not interested in? (eg, wrestlers, high schools and other vandal-magnets) --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Just to let you know that Keith Miller, a biog you've contributed to in the past, is the latest collaboration project of the cricket WikiProject, in our efforts to get The Invincibles to Featured Topic. If you'd like to join in... well, you're most welcome! Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
DYK
[edit]
|
On 23 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article No. 112 Squadron RAF, 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. |
--Maxim(talk) 00:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well done mate, especially finding that colour pic and the citation about the initial use of the shark's teeth. Just checking, were you going to do one on 250SQN? I was considering it but won't worry if you already have it in the pipeline... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Image file
[edit]Grant, would you mind deleting Image:004353Drummond.jpg for me? Tried uploading a new version of it three times but just got a thinned version of the original... Created a brand new file Image:004353Drummond1.jpg to test the new version and it's okay so the original can go. Course it'd be nice to know why the overwrite didn't work but, in my experience, sometimes these things just work and sometimes they just don't... Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I have replied to yor comments at the above. Aatomic1 (talk) 01:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Happy New Year
[edit]
|
Hello Grant65, I hope you had a pleasant New Year's Day, and that 2008 brings further success, health and happiness! ...and further nationalist conquests ;) All the best!.... ~ Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
BTW, have you seen the SBS series "Real Top Guns" at 8pm on Wednesdays about the RAAF? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Association football
[edit]Im a football (australian) fan like you. I feel that the best bet is to change all the headings to Association football, as this will confuse people and eventually all the articles will be named Association football, and in Australia i think all the headings will soon be Association Football (soccer), which is the best heading possible. InsteadOf (talk) 12:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps more to the point, these edits are actually being discussed seriously as a result of the move Football (soccer) -> Australian football. This probably needs more discussion rather than simple reversion. JPD (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd definitely recommend taking part in the discussion at Talk:Sport in Australia rather than just reverting the changes. Edit warring when there is valid discussion going on is not a good look. -- Mark Chovain 23:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd really like to help...
[edit]... I really would, but I just don't understand the discussion, or how it refers to the article. Your best bet would be an RfC on this, and I advise you to notify the proper Wikiprojects to get more of a discussion going. WP:3O could also be of assistance, because there seem to be just two editors in this discussion. I'm sorry for not being of greater assistance, I just don't understand the dispute. J-ſtanContribsUser page 17:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Australia newsletter
[edit]WikiProject Australia publishes a newsletter informing Australian Wikipedians of ongoing events and happenings within the community and the project. This month's newsletter has been published. If you wish to unsubscribe from these messages, or prefer to have the newsletter delivered in full to your talk page, see our subscription page. This notice delivered by BrownBot (talk), at 21:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC).
Hans-Joachim Marseille
[edit]Hi, I already "accused" somebody else but maybe it was you? :-) Could it be that you have rewritten the part of the section about the controversy over claims. I have some concern about the statement as it stands today "According to a biographer of Marseille, Walter Wübbe, records verify 109 of Marseille's 158 official victories". My original statement is so distorted now that it does not reflect what is in Wübbes book. The text as it stands now, to my interpretation, does not reflect the truth, since Wübbe only stated that the German National Archives still hold records(German documents about eye witness reports, Marseilles version of the victory, etc. required to convince the German bureaucracy that his claims are valid) for 109 aerial victories, this does not include material (documents about losses, etc.) from British point of view. Now I'm not a lawyer, but to me that is just one side of the coin and proves only that from the German perspective (rules that were applied by the Luftwaffe to credit a pilot with an aerial victory) at least 109 claims are rock solid (unless someone deliberately lied which I want to rule out for now). No statement about the missing 49 claims can be made since the records are not available anymore, which does not mean they are more or less controversial than the other 109 kills. By the way the 109 records still available include September 1, 1942. So what does that mean for the 26 kills claimed by JG 27 on September 1? By the way the article as it stands now could lead to the misinterpretation that Marseille alone accounted for these numbers. I think that the existence of these German records can be a building block in objectively proving Marseilles claims, but they themselves are not enough to objectively verify these claims. What do you think? Wübbe in his first part of the book, made a tremendous effort to link Marseilles claims to British units, squadrons and in some cases down to the individual pilots themselves (like Pare and Botha). Unfortunately I don’t have Russel Brown book so I cannot comment on how detailed his criticism about Marseille/JG 27 claims is. I therefore suggest to delete the sentence "According to a biographer of Marseille, Walter Wübbe, records verify 109 of Marseille's 158 official victories" because it neither proves nor disproves the controversy.MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Would you please be so kind and review the changes I made to paragraph? ThanksMisterBee1966 (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
USAAF 57th FG
[edit]Thanks for pointing this out to me! This is an interesting fact, which is contradicting Wübbe. So far I am a bit reluctant to believe that Wübbe has lied or made this up. It is also not phrased as a wild speculation. The website [2] suggest that already in September 1942 some degree of missions were flown from Egypt. I would like to keep the statement in the article for now and see what the Wikipedia community comes up with over time. What do you think?MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter — Issue XXII (December 2007)
[edit]
 Issue XXII (December 2007) | ||
|
New featured articles:
New A-Class articles: | |
| ||
| ||
Tag & Assess 2007 is now officially over, with slightly under 68,000 articles processed. The top twenty scores are as follows:
Although the drive is officially closed, existing participants can continue tagging until January 31 if they wish, with the extra tags counting towards their tally for barnstar purposes. We'd like to see what lessons can be learned from this drive, so we've set up a feedback workshop. Comments and feedback from participants and non-participants alike are very welcome and appreciated. | ||
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. | ||
Note: This newsletter was automatically delivered. Regards from the automated, Anibot (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
DYK
[edit]|
|
On 8 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Frost (pilot), 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. |
--Wizardman 23:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Frost
[edit]Unfortunately I do not. I made an assumption here given personal names are not really conclusive proof either way ( I happen to know some Afrikaners with names like Capps and Smith) and also that he was born in South Africa. But I do not have any information pertaining to his parents and I am unsure of their heritage. Perhaps this should be removed until a reliable source emerges. Dapi89 (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Manfred von Richthofen
[edit]Best regards from a german aquarian... A few minutes ago I was furious as hell. Sorry about that, but I did some research before changing the name of Richthofen. I haven't looked up the english references - German was much more appropiate to me. Adelsrecht would be a good resource within wikpedia as one of more references... But believe it or not, if somebody was of real nobility his or her title was and/or became part of the name. --Oldnag85 (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)