User talk:Grant65/Archive Jul07-Sep07

opentask

Give it up, mate. No matter how loudly/nicely you ask people to do otherwise, they will post their messages at the very bottom of your talk page. Plus the "+" tab at the top of the page automatically puts stuff at the bottom of the page. And don't get me started on bots that simply refuse to follow clear instructions. I tried putting a navigation bar at the bottom of my talk page once, but was defeated within a week. ;-) Hesperian 07:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

LoL. I forgot about the pesky +. But I never give up ;-)

P 40 Picture

Grant,

The text was overlappiing the photo when I first visited the page. It may work well in your browser and screen settings but not in all, mine included.

Cheers.

--Kevin Murray 02:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It does look fine now. Who knows? I wasn't trying to fuss with your work, just fix a perceived problem. All's well that ends well. Great photos. --Kevin Murray 03:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Marginal utility

I actually genuinely appreciate your efforts, much as I seem to be resisting them. Anyway, one point that I would here make is that the definition is forced to walk a sort of tight-rope because on the one hand the most general conception does not presume quantification but on the other hand the mainstream of economic thought does make this presumption. In this context, the Austrian School will effectively say that the marginal utility is just the marginal use; the neoclassical economists will say that it is the satisfaction got from that use. (There are issues of isomorphism here, but few people could follow a discussion of them.) So the present definition of marginal utility per se leaves “utility” undefined, and then is followed by a brief discussion of the concept and conception of utility. —SlamDiego_←T 18:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay; I can live with that. —SlamDiego_←T 08:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

This is what I meant to do. Sorry for the mix-up. Regards, Signature^brendel 05:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Len Waters

Nice article mate. I have converted all the citations to appropriate templates, good luck on the Did You Know! Abbott75 ☺ 10:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

New Australian military articles

Hi Grant. Have you noticed that Portal:Military of Australia has a section where new articles can be listed? At present I add new articles when I spot them, but I'm sure that I miss some - including some which you've created. --Nick Dowling 08:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks very good. The only suggestion I'd make is that it would be interesting to discuss why Waters was able to become a pilot when just about every other skilled job in Australia was closed to Indigenous people. When researching the Torres Strait Light Infantry Battalion article I read that Torres Strait people found that the Army was less discriminatory than general society at the time - did the same apply to the RAAF? --Nick Dowling 10:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, a very useful article, Grant. My only minor suggestion is re. the description of Len's brother as "a notable infantryman". That phrase kind of just hangs there for me, suggest either remove "notable" or provide a few additional words about what made him notable (given that he doesn't have his own article - or is that next on your list?!). Cheers, Ian Rose 13:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Keith Miller and RAAF and ADF and you

Hi there Grant and thanks for clearing that up and your work on Australian Defence Force topics. And well done on the RfA. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of the RAAF,

On July 26, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Len Waters, 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.

Well done. A remarkable fellow.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

AWM images AGAIN

Thanks for the information on Indigenous Australians in the military - it's a very interesting topic, and might even justify an article (the Army is one of the largest single employers of Indigenous Australians - and might even be the largest since ATSIC and CDEP have been abolished).

By the way, the issue of whether pre-1955 images on the AWM database are PD has come up again. If you'd like to comment the discussion is at: Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Australian_War_Memorial_images_.2F_PD-Australia. When this discussion is complete I'm removing the email from the AWM on my talk page and replacing it with a list of the discussions of these images being PD - I should have done this after the first time it came up and was resolved. --Nick Dowling 11:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Occupied Europe

Please take a look at Participants in World War II. Mkpumphrey 13:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Reference - "Andorra, Liechtenstein and San Marino were not occupied during WW2; please see the articles on those countries for more details. Serbia,Slovenia, and Montenegro did not exist as independent states during the war, and the Independent State of Croatia was a Axis puppet state which was not recognised internationally as separate from Yugoslavia. Please be more careful when including material. Grant | Talk 19:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)"

Okay, while they are not independent countries, I will give you the Channel Islands on the technicality. But how do the Ukraine and White Russia represent all of the Nazi occupied portions of the Soviet Union? Mkpumphrey 13:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Messerschmitt Me 262, F-15 Eagle and F-22 Raptor

Grant, I know you have just been appointed an administrator, but could you look at the edit history of these three articles. An editor with a strong predeliction to remove popular culture references has systematically deleted sections without consensus or discussion page commentary. FWIW Bzuk 18:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC).

Make sure you actually check the talk pages, and the fact that the incorrect page was substituted several times. --Eyrian 18:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I can see that Eyrian has put a lot of thought into how we treat trivia. Just as Bzuk has put a lot of effort into aviation articles. Personally speaking, I am ambivalent about pop culture references in articles. In the cases concerned, the pop culture sections are small and unobtrusive, and include an embedded warning regarding cruft. There is no agreement on what constitutes "trivia", no hard and fast rule against popular culture sections, and there are articles which are far worse in terms of cruft. Eyrian is within his/her rights to request citations (although this would be fairly silly in the case of well-known movies and books), but I think the sections in question should be kept or reinstated, until a consensus is reached on the talk pages that they can be removed. Feel free to discuss it here further. Grant | Talk 02:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Do I discern that an agreement has already been reached? Grant | Talk 02:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, but my perception is that it's different from the one you assumed. Whatever the case may be, people are speaking now, instead of reverting. --Eyrian 02:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If Bzuk is agreeable to the removal of those sections, then that is a step towards consensus for your position. However, it doesn't follow that other editors of those pages are also agreeable. Grant | Talk 03:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Help

Our mutual Italian friend requires some help in editing, he is now contributing to the Ki-61 Hien and Ki-100. I can sort out some of the grammar and spelling, but I have corrected this countless times. He continues to make the same mistakes, not capitalizing months, using measures such as "ltrs." and other basic errors. I have written to him by email, posted on his home page and asked for other help from the aviation group forum. There is also another major issue that I haven't fully addressed but that is that most of the submissions are POV and sound like they are copied from magazines as well as being wholly Italian-centred- go figure, but still, much of the stuff is useless but I don't want to just hack and slash. What do you think? FWIW Bzuk.

Bill, I have done a web search using some of his more unusual word formations, in both English and Italian and haven't come up with anything. So I think he should get the benefit of the doubt, unless obvious plagiarism is sighted. At the same time, unencyclopedic phrases, words, abbreviations etc should get the axe. I have seen editors like this turn into valuable contributors over time, with some guidance. Grant | Talk 02:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right and the fact that he had contributed approximately 2,000 articles on Wikipedia.It makes me think that what he has done is a translation of his original articles and then can rapidly insert, BillCJ says "dump" the text into a new article. That's probably why he has not made any progress in correcting his edits or even looking at the edits that have made by others. I do think he might make some valuable contributions over time and the one editor I can think of that had made the transition from Italian submissions is Attilios who is a remarkable writer in English. Here's hoping! [:¬] Bzuk 04:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC).

Military history WikiProject coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kirill 03:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikimania 2008

Hey! I'm contacting all the members of wikiproject Perth because, I have put in an incomplete bid for Perth to hold Wikimania 2008. Please show your support by adding your name to the list and help contribute by improving our bid which is incomplete and located here - thanks Talk to symode09's or How's my driving? 17:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Reminder

Wikipedia:Meetup/Perth/3 is next sunday 19th August, if you haven't already please sign on the meetup page if your coming, if your still unsure indicate anyway so I can confirm numbers with the venue thankyou Gnangarra 00:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ko-hyoteki Sydney.jpg

Hi Grant, how is it that copyright has expired, yet the AWM requires that "their watermark is not removed and that permission be sought for commercial use"? The AWM is bluffing and we shouldn't perpetuate that by repeating their propaganda. —Moondyne 15:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Wandalstouring 08:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Japanese war crimes

As for our country, guiltiness is decided depending on the trial. Therefore, I do not understand the reason why you deny the trial system. Is not the criminal in your country decided depending on the trial system? --KoreanShoriSenyou 06:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You are confusing crimes and convictions. Grant | Talk 06:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Nazi concentration camps

If you remove the edits of other persons you have tocheck first the validity. Hitler came to power in a colalition with the catholic party das Zentrum, a prominent member was Von Papen. Under this coalition the concentration camp Dachau was founded in March 1933. In July 1933 das Zentrum dissolved itself. However memebers of the former party remained memebr of the Hitler government until at least 1935. So. don't accuse me of 'jokes', that was a very disgusting remark to second generation victom of the Hitler terror against political resistance, a terror more cruel than the well-known terror against Jews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robvhoorn (talk • contribs) 08:28, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

In the article of das Zentrum you can see until which date 'das Zentrum' was included in the government and dissolved itself (6 july 1933); in the article about Dachau you can see that Dachau was founded at 23 March 1933. So, Dachau was founded under the government in which 'das Zentrum' participated. Von Papen was vice-chansellor, although he left das Zentrum one year earlier (Hitler was chancellor). At this moment I can not yet find reference to the participation of Zentrum-ministers until 1935, but I did not refer to that fact in the article. I do not agree with your opinion that if a party is dissolved but the politicians of that party continue to participate with the government that that would not be characteristic for that party. But that is another discussion. Robvhoorn 10:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Naval infantry

The definition of "marines" is "naval infantry". The definition of "naval infantry" is not "marines". They are not the same. No military professional, or specialist in the field, thinks they are or refers to them interchangably. Trekphiler 17:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I had in mind the Soviet naval infantry. And I think Peattie & Evans' Kaigun expressly contradicts the "common opinion" (which I held once, too). I'm not qualified to say exactly what the difference is, but my sense is, Marines are specially trained for amphibious landings, & naval infantry aren't. Separate article? I'd say they should be, or at least a separate section to distinguish. If the redirect goes to "marines", I can live with it until something more (if appropriate) gets done. Trekphiler 11:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak to the training of either SNLF or Sov NI, except to say Peattie & Evans (I think) & Scott & Scott (in Russian Army?) call them "naval infantry" & make the point "they aren't Marines". From what you're saying, it might make more sense to switch the redirect. I've no problem with that, if you can resolve the conflict noted. Trekphiler 13:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

USS PT-337

Thanks for edits on the above and the heads-up re 'memorial'. Took an interest in this one after defending it at WP:AFD. Most of the text was the raw text from a previous editor and had not got round to copy-editing. You might want to take a look at Hansa Bay too which is a work in progress... Cheers Dick G 07:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

P-40 Reference

The reason I asked about Masell, is that a lot of statements about the P-40's performance seems to come back to an internet article written by Patrick Masell in 2002. In a cursory search on his name, I could not come across any publications other than internet articles. Now that doesn't always mean anything but usually a historian of some import has other published works and has gone through some peer or publishers' review in order to have an authoritative and accepted work. I read Masell's P-40 article and could not find any corresponding reference sources although there were allusions to other sources and overall, although well-written, it looked to be merely an author's opinions. The line: "Hopefully further research (and perhaps this article) will help to vindicate the Warhawk and destroy the myth of the frail Zero's superiority." seems to be suspicious in that it is stating a position that is not yet backed up by research. FWIW Bzuk 06:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC).

DYK

On 2 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hal Far Fighter Flight, 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.

--Carabinieri 17:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

OP20DC?

I don't want to start (another) revert war, so let me ask. Do you have a rationale for using OP20G v Hypo on the Pearl Harbor page? I maintain OP20G is the DC unit, the senior command; more apt, I think, would be a link to signals intelligence or cryptanalysis, no? Trekphiler 04:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Had a glance at Pearl Harbor, & I don't disagree, but it still isn't OP20G. Compromise per above? 04:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trekphiler (talk • contribs)

Battle of Long Tan

There are some serious problems with the war crimes section, so I moved it to the talk page, and left a comment. I also advised Bobbuick not to edit the article anymore for 24 hours, as he has already passed 3rr. But he has some legit concerns. - Crockspot 04:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:What the ___ ?

Hi Grant, that was due to page move vandalism. I deleted the blank page so that the article could be moved back to its right place. Regards, PeaceNT 07:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For all your work on Wikipedia, but especially with World War II, I, Sharkface217, hereby award you this barnstar. Good job, you deserve this. --Sharkface217 03:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This is long overdue. --Sharkface217 03:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

The August 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Flugge

Nice work on the article. Looks wonderful. Keep it up. Twenty Years 14:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Messerschmitt Bf 109 and Hans-Joachim marseille

Hi. I hope you don't think I have any particular problem with the info itself. I just think it would better be served on Marseilles page and or JG 27's. It doesn't particularly serve any purpose and really isn't appropriate for the 109 page, it goes into too much detail that diverges from the main subject - the Bf 109. Im certain if I hadnt taken it out someone else would have because of this. Also notes should be kept to a minimum - I have come across other editors that assert it is better practice. I do believe that this would be better served on Marseilles page. Its always controversial and it may be considered too unencyclopedic. I was involved in one dispute over Marseilles claims a few months back relating to claims but I don't think there would be too many objecting to its presence thereDapi89 12:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC).

Hi again. Just noticed a slight error on the Marseille input. The last sentence is a quote and should be accompanied with a citation. By the way nice pics.Dapi89 16:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC).

Claims

Hi,

I can understand your point of view and agree to your approach to some degree. Kurt Welter for instance is another good example here. His kills with the Me 262 have been questioned by fellow German pilots and not by his enemies. This is pointed out in the article itself. Now, with respect to Marseille I feel a bit different about the issue. I feel comfortable with the fact that we point out that discrepancies between his credited kills and the allied losses exist. And the article reflects this information. However the amount of exposure this topic has in the article itself could suggest, and all the fuss you had with Dapi89 is evidence for this, that Marseille intentionally lied about his numbers. Now, personally I am in no position to assess whose (Brown, Kurowski, etc.) position is right and better researched. What I believe to be factual is that Marseille was held in high esteem by his fellow comrades (Gallands testimony is a good example). This was different with respect to Kurt Welter. MisterBee1966 09:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I am not sure what the right approach would be. I feel that an article about how the different air forces gave credited for aerial victories to their pilots is needed. Here we can discuss the USAF system versus RAF versus Luftwaffe etc. In this article we can also discuss errors in the system and point to occasions of over claiming. I really feel that only if the pilot as an individual can be made accountable for over claiming should we make this an issue in the individual article of the pilot itself. This health warning could then be linked into every potential article (where applicable)MisterBee1966 12:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to dispute what is factual about 15/9/1942 or JG 27 as a whole. And indeed this should be mentioned. But the question I ask myself, is Marseille as an individual or JG 27 as a whole, responsible for the over claiming effect? And I am inclined to say No unless we find evidence that this inflation was done intentionally by him or the individuals involved. Otherwise it is an error in the system and claims were credited in good faith and to the best the system and the technology of the time allowed. And this type of intentional over claiming, which is lying from my point of view, should be expressed differently in any article than the type of over claiming which is due to errors.

Another example, Erbo Graf von Kageneck died from combat injuries sustained in combat with Clive Caldwell. In Caldwells article it reads "...On 24 December, Caldwell was involved in an engagement which mortally wounded another Luftwaffe ace, Hpt. Erbo Graf von Kageneck (69 kills) of III./JG 27. Caldwell only claimed a "damaged" at the time, but postwar sources have attributed him with the kill."

How is a kill defined? Wounded indeed he was, but he did fly his plane back to base. Is this a kill or not? I would say not, since the plane made it back. Otherwise we should not count kills if the pilot baled out safely. I always assumed that a "kill" means the destruction of the aircraft and not the pilot. Maybe this is philosophical?! MisterBee1966 07:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

it says "but postwar sources have attributed him with the kill". Now I'm not a native speaker of the English language but synonyms for the word "attributed" are: credited, accredited, recognized ... So maybe a disclaimer is needed stating that he was never "officially" credited with this kill

That is a good point, I concur in the opinion that Marseille was made into a "national hero" and was under extreme pressure to live up to expectations and thus it is indeed possible that at some point results had to be "produced" in order to meet public expectations. Some sources (including Kurowski) state that Marseille suffered from severe exhaustion and mental fatigue in his final weeks. So maybe the fact that allied losses and his claims do not match up is implicit evidence for him (or the system) over claiming his victories. I never looked at it this way. MisterBee1966 08:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Verify please

(Cross posted to User talk:Grant65 and User talk:Wwoods)

Can you verify this? I don't have that reference handy, but I am suspicious of that claim. Raul654 22:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Revert warning

You recently made four reverts all within 24 hours on Hans-Joachim Marseille. I have documented this on the discussion page with links, and I have also added a warning notice to that page, which applies also to Dapi89. Given that you are a new admin, you in particular should be working harder at calming things down rather than making them worse. There is also a wikiquette alert here concerning your discussions on that page. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 21:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Caldwell

Nice expansion, Grant. One thing I've meant to ask, re. the assertion "(Caldwell was later haunted by the memory of a Japanese pilot who survived being shot down in the sea, but could not be rescued.)" Did you put that one in before? Should really have a citation... Cheers, Ian Rose 21:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks

Grant, thank you for fixing my editing oops and for graciously directing me to the editing documentation. I meant no harm.StephelCA 01:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Another soccer troll

I found another attept of giving soccer the whole credit as football. User:Falcadore keeps on editing Template:Melbourne Sports Teams and the other's eg, Brisbane, Adelaide, Sydney, Perth to wrtie football without the agreed (soccer) after it. Another person that is trying to make sure only soccer can be called football now. Can you stop him? I'm getting sick of it. Sliat 1981 11:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

All Australian Team

I see your point - but I don't see the vandalism being that high that protection of any kind is warranted. It's not like a constant onslaught and is easily managed. BTW, when you reverted my unprotection, you forgot to re-protect the article :) -- Longhair\^talk 12:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)