User talk:Grant65/Archive Jan08-Mar08

Keith Miller

Hi. Looking back through the article history, I see you're responsible for an awful lot of work on the Keith Miller article in the past.

You will hopefully be pleasantly surprised if you return for another look. The cricket WikiProject is currently pushing for a Featured Topic on the 1948 Australian team; having already done so for Sid Barnes and Arthur Morris, we're currently taking Miller to FA. It's a collaborative effort - please do join in. --Dweller (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Battle of the Philippine Sea

Greetings from Wild Surmise.

I'd be grateful if you'd let me know in what respect(s) the paragraph in question is unencyclopedic.

Thanks and regards,

Wild Surmise (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I put 'seven' in anticipation of your removing the paragraph yet again (and won a tenner on it).

Cheers,

Dave

Wild Surmise (talk) 05:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Grant,

Thanks for your response - and good to hear from you.

On the Palawan Passage question, I suppose I tend to regard Morison as the authoritative source. On the other hand I rather agree with you about the word 'Fight' - in this context I don't care for it much myself, for the same reason that you give. On the other hand, I would guess Morison went for 'Fight' in part because he thought that this action wasn't large enough to be called a 'Battle' (and also because it wasn't a surface action). As regards whether it's big enough to merit a battle name, I would say that it's on the cusp.

Personally I would favour calling it 'The Action in Palawan Passage', but there doesn't seem to be any precedent for this. I certainly don't strongly object to reverting it to 'Battle', but I did feel that it wasn't an error on my part to refer to it as the 'Fight'.

On the question of the inclusion/exclusion of Philippine Sea, I very much look forward to discussing this. Annoyingly I have to go out and deal with life's mundane necessities in a little while, but I'll try to respond again shortly.

In the meantime, again, good to hear from you.

Regards,

Dave

Wild Surmise (talk) 10:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

In the interim, you might try -

http://www.dd-692.com/a%20new%20look%20at%20leyte%20gulf.htm

Just one example. Personally I favour argument over the mere polling of opinion on these issues, but at least the page in question does demonstrate that I am not entirely alone.

Regards,

Dave

Dear Grant,

You wrote 'As someone who has been writing and editing WP articles for four years, has been an WP admin for six months and teaches at university, I find the style of contributions by many new editors unencyclopedic; it doesn't mean that they are bad writers, just that they haven't got the hang of the housed [sic] style.'

Thank you, but - even though I am greatly relieved to learn that you don't necessarily regard me as a bad writer, and even though I'm duly impressed by your imposing list of credentials - this doesn't answer my question as to what is unencyclopedic about the offending paragraph - and I would still really like to know.

Regards,

Dave

Wild Surmise (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Grant,

I would like to raise some of these issues on the discussion pages for the associated articles, if that would be OK with you.

Regards,

Dave

Wild Surmise (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Grant,

Yes, I forgot to sign in.

All very interesting (and unutterably tedious) but even the 'endash' is too long - and the 'emdash' is plain ridiculous.

'Mere' aesthetic considerations are important - to some of us.

Regards,

Dave

Wild Surmise (talk) 10:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Palawan Passage

Dear Grant,

As you may have seen, I have amended the heading of the section at issue to 'The submarine action in Palawan Passage'. This may help to avoid a meaningless controversy, but in any event I would argue that this action cannot be deemed to merit a battle name, which I would suppose is why Morison went for the word 'fight' as an alternative (although 'action' would also have served his purpose).

Regards,

Wild Surmise (talk) 08:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Grant,

Thanks for your message - I'm glad you approve of this change.

As I wrote in my last message to you, I thought that the action in Palawan Passage doesn't merit being referred to as 'The Battle of . . '. (Incidentally, I think that if it is 'officially' given a battle name then it is the first submarine action in history to be so treated).

The more I thought about this issue the more convinced I was that it was inappropriate to confer a battle name on the action. Although the submarine attacks of course did a great deal of damage I'm not aware of any accounts which describe any Japanese counterattack. So really it consists of a submerged torpedo attack by each of two US submarines.

I wouldn't call that a 'battle'. But, by the same token, it isn't a 'fight' either. And I agree with you that 'fight' in any case tends to be inappropriate in a work of naval history . I think the title 'The Fight in Palawan Passage' must actually have originated with Morison. He is I think a good writer and a very good historical analyst, but he quite often uses language which is almost reminiscent of tabloid journalism, and which tends to jar when one encounters it in a history book. I don't have any of the Morison to hand, but examples I seem to remember (from the volume on Guadalcanal) are his describing the strengthening of a force as 'beefing up' and the description of a battle as a 'pitch-black slugfest' (which really is very tabloid).

Thanks again for your message.

Regards,

Dave

Wild Surmise (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Grant,

I've responded to your most recent 'hostile' edit with an entry on the discussion page for 'Largest naval battle'.

I'm framing a reply on the 'one battle or not' issue and also the (related) notion of a 'respectable source', but it looks like as if this will be quite long and therefore not very prompt.

In the meantime,

Regards,

Dave

Wild Surmise (talk) 09:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Australian english and soccer

Then you should take that up with the Association Football group. I was just undoing a large group of edits made by an unregistered editor according to Wiki policy as it was explained to me. The entire point of changing Football (soccer) to Association Football was because F-S was a dreadful compromise between the proponents of the two terms. Association football (soccer) is just returning the argument to its previous position. If what I did was wrong, then the process of explanation should be simplified to the point where there is not five conflicting policies.

If the use of Australian english is going to supersede the use of sporting terminology then it should say so. The Australian wikiproject should get its act together and assert itself on this issue and make the statement that Soccer is the term to be used for Australian articles. The problem being if the debate was brought to the Australian wikiproject group, then I believe you will find the same three year argument played out over a smaller group of editors with the same lack of resolution. --Falcadore (talk) 01:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus was achieved in the AF talk. Perhaps you should have voiced your opinion then. --Falcadore (talk) 02:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Dashes and Hyphens

Dear Grant,

Yes - I forgot to sign in.

All very interesting (and unspeakably - nay, unutterably - tedious) but even the 'endash' is too long - and the 'emdash' is just plain ridiculous.

Mere aesthetic considerations are important, at least - that is - to some of us.

Regards,

Dave

Wild Surmise (talk) 10:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Attack on James Stewart (actor)

On a peripheral interest of mine, I have been occassionally looking at the James Stewart page because he did have a distinguished history as a USAAC, USAAF and USAF pilot. See: 172.143.87.209 using the same MO as notorious sock puppeteer Harvey Carter. See: [1] Can you look into this and do your admin' thin'? Bzuk (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC).

He also had a very undistinguished history as a racist. (172.188.166.2 (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC))

What Guidelines...?

This is my point, Grant: there are no limits to the enhancement of pics, thus there is no reason to question a photograph because it appeared 'kitsch' to the taste of an user. The blue tinct improved the contrast of the image. DagosNavy 15:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Grant; it's OK with your version of the Cesare pic: just leave mine in Commons as an alternative. No problem.DagosNavy 00:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Non-English operational codenames

Erm, why the moves? It's reasonably standard, in English-language historiography, to use "Operation" together with the original-language codename; see, for example here (where the usage has actually migrated back into German, incidentally).

Certainly, the more common operations (e.g. Barbarossa) are ubiquitously used with the English term. Kirill 13:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, fair enough. I've brought it up with the project at WT:MILHIST#Non-English operational codenames; it's not really my area of specialty, so it would be good to get some more knowledgeable members to comment. Kirill 18:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why one would think it necessary to consult that (or any other) project. One might even say that it's a matter of common sense. Or is the phrase 'The City of Los Angeles' unacceptable?

Regards,

Wild Surmise (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Main problem

My main problem at the moment is working out what you might mean (on the 'Largest naval battle' discussion page) by 'beg the question'. My auxiliary problem is what you might mean here by 'significant' (as Guy Crouchback would ask 'Signifying what?').

Regards,

Wild Surmise (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Nonetheless, please accept my apologies for my undo of your 186778596 - I was focussed on the question of the operation name and just didn't register how extensive was your edit.

Regards,

Wild Surmise (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulation

Great photo of Makhaya Ntini at the WACA. A pleasure to view! ROxBo (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Aust Barnstar

		The Australian Barnstar of National Merit
		for your efforts with Australian articles Gnangarra 00:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Noemfoor - DYK

On 26 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Noemfoor , 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.

Thanks for making a full article. — ERcheck (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Please self-revert

Please self-revert this. Although protection technically can't stop an edit war between administrators, the general tradition is that an administrator shouldn't continue the revert-war after it is protected. The Wrong Version and all that. I acknowledge that this may have been an error in not realising it was protected, hence this polite request. I protected because the alternate option was block two administrators — I hope you and JzG can discuss this rationally on the talk page, as the well-versed Wikipedians you are, which makes protection a better option. Daniel (talk) 09:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that. There's always two Wrong Versions to each article :) Daniel (talk) 09:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Remark

Do consider editing articles other than those that are getting you down. Remove them from your watchlist and don't go back there for a while. Focus on cricket, perhaps. The RFDS article could do with a history section. Relata refero (talk) 15:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A Sock attack

A particularly vicious vandal known as Wikzilla has surfaced again in the form of socks: User:68.244.171.75 and User:68.245.43.252. See:[2] and [3]. Can you do your new admin' 'thin? FWIW Bzuk (talk) 12:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC).

Grant, take a well-deserved break and I'll see ya' when I see ya'. Take care. Bzuk (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC).

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 February 14! TomStar81 (Talk) 04:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 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) 23:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Australia in the War of 1939–1945

Hi Grant. There is a minor matter that I would like to bring to your attention.

Despite the best efforts of the Australian War Memorial website to obfuscate the name of the AWM's "official history" of Australia's involvement in World War II, the simple historical fact is that the name of the series is the name under which its volumes were published, to wit Australia in the War of 1939–1945. This can be verified by the Wikipedia article about the series, the AWM's own website or by examining the title page of each volume (e.g. page 1 of Volume II – Royal Australian Navy, 1942–1945: Contents, Illustrations, Maps, Sketch Maps, Preface, and Chronology). Consequently, I have been replacing the AWM's misnomer wherever it occurs in Wikipedia articles.

While some people might think this distinction is pedantic, anyone who is searching in a library or a used book shop for volumes in the series will find them under the title Australia in the War of 1939–1945, not Official Histories – Second World War. Personally, I think it is quite ironic that an institution whose raison d'être is preserving Australia's military history would take liberties with its own history, but that's just my opinion.

R. A. Hicks (talk) 05:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Tomahawk and Kittyhawk

Hey Grant, have you ever played with the flight Simulator Il2? It is supposedly very realistic, I think you would find it interesting to compare the P40B/C/ Tomahawk variants with the later Kittyhawk types. In that game at any rate the Kittyhawk seems to be much superior on many points. I wonder if this can be verified from any other source.

The Kittyhawk has more horsepower, though of course it's also heavier, it seems to handle a lot better (less likely to spin) and accelerate much faster. The englne on the P-40E seems to be able to maintain WEP power settings much longer before overheating. It seems to have more redundant control systems, thus much less likely to lose aileron or rudder control from a fuselage hit for example. Seems to have more armor. It definately has a better windscreen (less obsructions) and far more effective guns.

That said, in the game, the Tomahawk can totally dominate the 109E. The nose guns are also more accurate than wing guns in the Kittyhawk types. It is outclassed by the 109F but the early Kittyhawk can handle that. The later Kittyhawks can more than hold their own with any 109 variant G through K, below 4,000 meters. Basically in game the P-40 seems to be able to hold an edge over the 109 below 4,000-5,000 meters, but has trouble at higher altitudes than that. It also has a distinct speed disadvantage against the Fw 190, though so does the Spit V.

The same seems to be true of the other relatively accurate online Sims as well, such as World War II Online, the P-40 seems to hold up very well against the 109 if you know how to fly it. It seems to be harder to fly to it's best advantages, which points up the tragedy of the extremely poor familiarization training and tactics that were given to the DAF pilots..

One thing I've noticed in the game, tactics I read about from Greg Boyington, Robert DeHeaven, Clive Caldwell and Nicky Barr actually worked in the game. It's quite subtle.

Just thought you might find this interesting, FYI.

Drifter bob (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks mate. Interesting comments. I would like to try the Il2 sims, but fear addiction...Wikipedia is bad enough for that!

What you say backs up what I've read about the actual air combat experience. As a general observation, it seems that the USAAF P-40 pilots had less trouble with 109s and this was probably a result of three things: the Merlin-engined P-40 variants they operated, their longer general flying hours on P-40s, and the second-hand experience gained from (now) battle-hardened DAF units, which individual 57th FG pilots were attached to for combat experience in July-October 1942. Cheers, Grant | Talk 17:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with that. They don't have the Merlin engined versions in the Sims sadly but I think the real issue is the greater amount of horsepower which just got the plane closer to that elusive 'sweet spot' (it's also interesting that the USAAF seemed to do a lot of the same lightening efforts that the VVS did, such as stripping out wing guns). The latest version they have in Il2 is the P-40M, but it seems more than powerful enough to hang with the 109s within it's performance ceiling, (i.e. below around 5,000 meters, which you rarely get over in the online game except in certain scenarios). The six guns makes a big difference too, not too many fighters can endure six .50s, although the Fw 190 can be hard to knock down even with cannon.

Also by the time of Torch, the P-40 had become a standard training aircraft for the USAAF, so they were indeed familiar with it and had been able to incorporate lessons learned by the RAF / RAAF etc. as well as from USAAF squadrons fighting in the Pacific, wheras the DAF pilots were faced with the P-40 as a new aircraft they had no knowledge of. There seemed to be a major training problem in the RAF during the early war, they had trained very good pilots but didn't delve deeeply into the realities of modern air combat, RAF pilots apparently weren't accustomeed aggressive maneuvering, pulling G's etc. even their native aircraft (spits and hurris) in the Battle of Britain, from the comments I've read and heard by RAF pilots in documentaries. It makes the amazing courage and resourcefullness of guys like Clive Caldwell and Nicky Barr all the more astounding, really.

In Il2 I'd say in Il2 at low altitude the P-40M is clearly superior to the Spit V (in game), and vs. all 109 variants except the 109G2 which is about equal. It's inferior to the Spit IX though. The P-40E is also a bit better than the Spit V, the P-40B is definiately inferior to the Spit, though it can do pretty well against the 109E.

Bottom line from my experience in the Flight Sim the P-40 is a little harder to fly well than the early Spits or the 109, but if you know the aircraft it can be pushed a bit further in certain respects (maneuverability at both high and low speed) and has a bit of an edge in firepower and toughness.

Oh and you should try it out, it can be a bit addicting but it's loads of fun, and you can take it in small doses. It's very hard actualy to be honest, quite a learning curve, which is a good thing because it keeps the servers from being too overwhelemed and you get a lot out of a relatively short time. There are some servers now which have very good historical "arenas" where you can really see the P-40 shine. And the other aircraft too ;)

Drifter bob (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Grant65, his Ip account, Dapi89 and the Stahlschmitdt page

Why are you operating as an IP when you have an account? Your user page says you are are not editing on wikipedia for the foreseeable future? Why lie? Why are you hiding behind an IP address? Why is your user name not appearing on my history page, yet it appears at the bottom of your comments? It looks like you typed it in, why? If you had edited properly I would have been curtious. You know the problems wikipedia has with IPs and vandals. I had reverted these edits with the intention of coming back, after a little research, and going through the article again, even at the expense of removing some appropriate edits (which would have been fully restored).

You err in some respects.

• The "highest cailbre" is noted in a number of sources. However I am told citations in leading paragraphs are "against the rules".
• The designation of German units can be listed as "II." and "2.". There is no essential policy here - infact both are used by authors in the same book
• The references made to Curry were not put in by me, and considering I was unaware of who I was dealing with, I decided to revert them (this page has suffered vandalism before believe it or not) until I have found evidence of these claims - I note that that information was not provided from the source given.
• Your analogy of the Hungarian officer is a little inaccurate. Many Hungarians, Bulgarians, Croats, Romanians and Italians fought in German colours after the capitulation/switching of sides of their respective nations. They were still considered Luftwaffe assets.
• I had not put in the date in the above described way. I also had not written "Squadron" as is above. These edits were done by another user.

Perhaps you could explain the requested before an apology is issued? Dapi89 (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That is not what you said Grant; "if Stahlschmidt had been a Hungarian Air Force officer attached to the Luftwaffe". There is no mention of a third-party anology here, and this is not the same as "My analogy was of Stahlschmidt being a non-Hungarian (say Swiss or Danish) in the Hungarian Air Force and attached to the Luftwaffe".

The mention of penalties incurred by pilots is important however, but like I said, mention of his RCAF would have been restored as and when I found a book source. I do not use web sources unless I have to as they are usually unreliable.

Anyway, I rarely get into disputes with other legitimate editors, although you may be the exception it seems, and in the interest of preventing this from dragging on, sorry for offending you. Whether its appropriate to say so or not, it is a fact that such a response would not have been made had you been identifiable. Feel free to have the last word. Until the next time..... Dapi89 (talk) 11:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

JAB

A tag has been placed on JAB requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Rfc

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

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)

Many Happy Returns

Happy Birthday Grant,

I hope everything is OK,

Regards,

Dave

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. 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)