User talk:Grant65/Archive Dec05-Mar06

WikiProject AFL

A WikiProject for AFL has finally been set up. You may consider joining. DaGizza ^{Chat (c)} 04:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Sparrow Force

G'Day Grant,

I have over 200 hours of video interviews with almost 100 veterans from every unit of Sparrow Force. They will be converted into something for television.

Regarding the 2/2 Ind Co - yes, they are a remarkable bunch aren't they? I was the last person to interview Ray Aitken. I attended Ray's funeral in Perth but I haven't heard anything about Sproxton, Carey or the others.

The most remarkable person I did meet was Dr. Les Poidevin in Adelaide. He replayed a Davis Cup tennis match with the POW camp commander on Timor. Did you know he found the cure for cerebral malaria by using my grandfather as a guinea pig?

Australian words

Hi Grant. I moved 'dag', a name for a person, back into the names for people category in the above article. Thanks for expanding on the definition. Cheers, Natgoo 21:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Japanese Weaponry

G'Day Grant,

You keep setting challenges. Went through my inventory and included a list of the Japanese equipment used on Timor. I did not mention what equipment the Dutch used as the equipment isn't listed anywhere but it has been noted that they had handy little sub-automatic uzi-style machine guns. Also, I can not find any evidence that the Dutch actually used their weaponry in combat. Several people I have interviewed stated that the Dutch gave their 'uzis' to the Australians and then disappeared into the bush.

If you have any time can you have a look at the 79th Light Anti-Aircraft Battery page and make some suggestions and/or edits, please? Some sarcastic bloke marked it with a cleanup stub.

Cheers,

(Bofors40 00:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC))

a question about the Japanese assaults in World War II....and a barnstar

In many of the articles I come across, the only offered reasons for the Japanese being able to apparently "overrun" defences in South-east Asia before 1943, even with an inferior force is that they had superior infantry tactics, air power and tanks. This is a rather generalised and oversimplified statement. The term "infantry tactics" is vague and unsatisfying, and pains the reader for more about the Japanese tactical brilliance. I so far have come up with the slightly less ambiguous explanation that the Allied units in Singapore and Malaya (and onwards til the Japanese height of their success) weren't as cohesive as the Japanese, who used encirclement, isolation and flanks to overwhelm their enemy locally, even though they had numerically inferior forces strategically.

This however is unsatisfying, and also too much of a generalisation and stereotyping the British command's inability to organise, but I feel it is generally better than what we have now. We do need however, a way better explanation of how exactly the Japanese overran the Allies. I mean, we clearly detail every troop movement in an article such as the Battle of Gettysburg, but nothing like that in the South-east Asian battles of World War II. Have any thoughts?

Oh, I decided to give you a barnstar for your dedication. :-) Natalinasmpf 03:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I, Natalinasmpf give Grant65 this barnstar for his knowledgeable documentation of battles in history.

Regarding your reply, I acknowledge it, thanks. I suppose Battle of Malaya needs some work concerning tone as well as the vagueness of the Japanese superiority. I was busy copyediting it a few days ago, when I accidentally quit the browser window, discouraging me ever since. Argh. I'm going to resume work on it pretty soon, but I request some assistance. In the very least, just vet my revisions after I copyedit it. Thanks! -- Natalinasmpf 02:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject AFL

G'day mate. I know you've probably been reluctant in the past, but finally, here it is: WikiProject AFL. See you there mate, drop us a line because I need some help on not only the AFL, but also the WAFL. Rogerthat 01:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Cowra

Thanks for your cleaning up Cowra and Mackenzie. I keep meaning to start the art on Ken but it would mean "doing a job" on my old school :) , I don't know if I am ready for that yet. SatuSuro 15:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

9th Division

Hi Grant. Did you accidently remove my expansion of the 9th Division's history? (it was marked as a minor edit). I've reverted your most recent edit to restore what I added today. If you were unhappy with what I've added I am, of course, more than happy to discuss it. --Nick Dowling 04:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Bell

I removed Bell from Category:People of Western Australia as he was already in categories Category:Fremantle Dockers players and Category:South Fremantle Football Club players. Both of these are subcategories of Category:Sportspeople of Western Australia, which is in turn a subcategory of Category:People of Western Australia. Although it is not a hard and fast rule, Wikipedia:Categorization and Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories and subcategories do state "Normally, an article should not be in both a category and its subcategory". Snottygobble | Talk 05:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

34th Bde/RAR

Hi Grant. 34 Brigade and the RAR are, and have always been, different entities. 34 Bde (now 1 Bde) was a Brigade HQ. The RAR is an association of infantry battalions. In 1948 the 3 infantry battalions which, at the time, were under the command of 34 Bde were ceremonially linked to form the RAR and 34 Bde re-named 1 Bde. As a British-pattern 'regiment' the RAR is not a tactical formation and its constituent battalions have always formed part of the Australian Army's various brigades. I believe that the BCOF was the only time all the RAR's battalions formed part of the same tactical formation (until 3 Bde was re-activated there was always at least one battalion based somewhere in Asia as part of a Comonwealth force).

You are correct that the wording in the RAR article on this topic is at present somewhat vauge and confusing. I'll have a go at improving it.

Edit: I've made some changes to the 34 Bde and RAR entries to clear things up a bit. Let me know what you think. --Nick Dowling 22:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Role of ANZAC citizens in the British forces 1939-45

Hi Grant:
In the past you had expressed an interest in the service and losses of Australian’s in the British Armed Forces in WW2. Today I came across two books that cover this topic and may be of interest to you. They are Forgotten Allies Vols 1 and 2 by J. Lee Ready. Both can be found at the Australian National Library at Canberra and are for sale on ABE( the price is a bit high).
Both books have narratives of the roles played by the lesser powers in WW2. There is a small section on the role of ANZAC citizens in the British forces, the author concludes that we can not identify the total number that served with the UK and their losses. He does mention the losses in Bomber Command of Australian units.
Recently I obtained a copy of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission 2004-05 annual report which lists the following dead in WW2 - UK 383,648; India 87,040; Canada 45,366; Australia 40,463; NZ 11,929; South Africa 11,902; Unidentified 24,112 Grand Total 604,460. These figures are at variance with what is posted to the WW2 casualties page which is based on the 1946 UK official statistics. The difference of 94,000 may be prisoners and missing who were declared dead after 1946. I need to confirm this before making a change to the numbers.--Berndd11222 23:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you help?

You are a reputable and balanced contributor, so can you please help to restore the truth in the Comparative military ranks of World War II article?

My opponents

1. Insist that General of the Army of the US was equal to Marshal of the Soviet Union and even Generalissimo.

2. That British Field Marshal corresponds to Generalissimo of the Soviet Union.

3. Place Reichsfuhrer-SS above Marshal of the Soviet Union.

4. Delete Oberster Fuhrer der Schutzstaffel and Soviet Marshals and Chief Marshals of specific arms.

They give no sources for their strange point of view, but simply reverting my edits aguing with their sence. They reject my sources because they are not British, while giving no other sources. They do not answer the questions above. Unfortunately they all sysops and blocked me for a week. Please help to state the truth.--Nixer 07:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right, there is no evidence of existance of official correspondence. So we have two choices to avoid the original research: either delete the article or build it on the base of existing works of historical researchers. For rank systems of particular countries, for instance, Soviet Union (and its Marshal ranks) though there exist nearly full information.--Nixer 08:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Australian I Corps

Hi Grant, That's an excellent start and I can't see anything wrong with it. The only thing which you need to be aware of when writing about I Corps is that it and II Corps appeared to have swapped names in 1943(???) so that the Corps the AIF divisions were under was re-named I Corps. --Nick Dowling 09:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit: After checking my trusty 'Official History of Australia in WW2' (Greece, Crete and Syria pages 549-550), it appears that the British actually requested that I Corps be re-deployed to the Far East. The argument over its return to Australia was over whether it should go to Burma after the fall of the NEI, and not over it leaving the Middle East. The British did fight to keep the 9th Div in the Middle East though. --Nick Dowling 10:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Last argument

Deleting messages from the forum as the last argument: [1]. What do you think?--Nixer 18:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Japanese War Crimes

Thanx. Anyway, I limits my presentation to War crime tribunals and treaties which Japan did or did not sign so there is no source issue here. On the other hand, other portion of the edit seems to rely on something else so I could make some reasonable case that these are all "original" research or, at least, op ed. Since, I'm a jap, such edit would have caused edit war so I generally dumped everything to Japanese government or Japanese opinions. As of compensation, it is all in treaties Japan and other countries signed and this fact is made quite clear. The amount in yen or dollar is sourced to exchange rate between dollar and yen. Lastly, I cannot source what is general trend in Japanese public opinions. Try imagining of you atempting to describe American conservative/liberal controversy in Japanese wikipedia page. It is impossible to source general opinion trend to particular writing or person (Anne Coutler/MicaleMoore) or media outlet (NY Times/Fox News). This isn't a palce to introduce the details of Japanese media structure. That is why I made general attribution to Japanese right or left. Yes, it is quite subjective judgement but what else could I do. I have previously made two suggestion. One is that the title of the page should be changed from Japanese war "crimes" to Japanese war "atrocities". The other is that the argument should be limited to treaties and War crime tribunal so that presentation can be legal or factual rather than philosophical. Didn't get positive response so I left the issue as it is. I made similar suggestion in Najing Massacre more than a year ago, I presented link to an article, which I thought was useful to the debate but practically everyone ignored it. Oh well... Anyway, I will stop using Yoji Hajime. I will be FWBOarticle, my old username. Few poeple I know in real life spotted my edit. I have very unsual name. Bye (^_^) Yoji Hajime

Ranks

A have created the temporary version of Comparative military ranks of World War II here: Comparative military ranks of World War II/temp. But I am afraid that Necrothesp as a very British patriot will quickly revert me because he doesent like Stalin and cannot see Stalin as Generalissimo outranking British Admiral or US General. Besides now the article is still protected for the second week, placing Himmler above any Marshal of Soviet Union. So I am asking for your advice and help with the matter.--Nixer 21:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Just spotted this. Pretty hilarious coming from someone who thinks Stalin outranked anybody in the world and refuses to be reasoned with on this point. And no, I don't like Stalin - he's probably history's greatest mass murderer, so what's to like? But that's not the reason I disagree he should be regarded as the most senior military officer of World War II. -- Necrothesp 17:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The Comparative military ranks of World War II/temp is currently in vandalized state. It does not represent my point of view.--Nixer 13:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

ORP Conrad

Thanks for the corrections. I had an impression something was wrong there, but forgot to check.. Halibutt 17:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

River Plate

Sigh! At least all we disagree about is emhasis on the Comonwealth and Empire/Dominions [2] my ISP provided home link was up and down during Jan (more down than up) so I could not support you like I would have liked too on the River Plate. One of the local rivers to where I grew up was the "Avon" which in Ancient British meant river. So when the Saxons arrived and asked "What is that?" the local answered river! So to this day there are lots of rivers called Avon in England. --Philip Baird Shearer 02:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Comparative military ranks of World War II

I'm giving up on this article for the moment and have removed it from my watchlist. There are too many trolls adding too much rubbish. -- Necrothesp 17:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Re your message on my talk page. I was not aware my edit deleted M of the RAAF, feel free to put it back in. Dainamo 20:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Peter F. Bell

Yes, but the thing is the disambig page links to Peter F. Bell, and the disambig page includes a description of what he is noted for (ie, that he is a footballer). Add to that the fact that Peter Bell (footballer) redirects to Peter F. Bell anyway and I would think the problem is solved. I have done this because there are more than two Peter Bells that played AFL and therefore it could cause confusion.

If you wanted you could have him as Peter Bell (AFL II), but Peter F. Bell is clearly the best option. Rogerthat ^Talk 03:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

There were two Peter Bells that played Australian rules football - see Peter Bell. Rogerthat ^Talk 10:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well obviously he did not have as long as successful career as F. Bell, but do you propose we move Peter R. Bell to Peter Bell (VFL/AFL I) and Peter F. Bell to Peter Bell (VFL/AFL II)?Rogerthat ^Talk 10:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

You see, this is why I moved them in the first place because I thought it would be the logical thing to do :) Rogerthat ^Talk 10:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Surely we just have Peter Bell (footballer) as the disambiguation page? (confused)--Hack 06:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Australia national football team redirect

Hello Grant! Glad to meet a fellow soccer supporter. I have left you a message on the discussion for the soccer word page. Please don't get me wrong, I am not angry, I would really like to discuss this earnestly.

Your edit summary Changed to disambig page, as per discussion on talk page confuses me. Where is the discussion? The RfD came up no consensus. That means to leave it alone. Why did you remove the redirect???? Please see WP:POINT. The only reason I have not reverted your change is because I will wait for you to show me where it was discussed and a consensus reached, which caused you to make the change. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 11:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia in Tetum

• Help building a Wikipedia in Tetum, the national language of East Timor. Give your contribution to the improvement of its test page -- Regards, 195.23.53.121 11:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC) Manuel de Sousa

Australian accents

Heh I totally agree Grant. I also think internal migration within Australia is such that accents are quite malleable - I picked up the SA-ian long 'a' (plarnt, darnce, etc) from an ex of mine, and now after moving to the UK I get told that I don't sound Australian at all (even though that aspect of my accent is the only part that could be described as possibly non-Australian-sounding, to me anyway).

I didn't add Jesse Spencer back after you removed him, either - that was someone else :) Thanks for all your hard work maintaining the Australian words and Australian English articles - it's much appreciated. Natgoo 15:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of capitalism

Hey, I'm posting you this notice because I remember you recently editing the Capitalism article. I moved the "criticisms" section and other criticisms embedded in other sections and their responses to Criticisms of capitalism. Atm the ordering of the sections isn't very logical, since all I did was moved separate sections. Please help, and/or comment at Talk:Capitalism#When_to_split_off_criticisms. Thanks! Infinity0 ^talk 22:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

a call to arms! AWOOGA!

G'day there Grant,

I see you've noticed, as well, that there's a bunch of silly people doing silly things on our football (soccer) articles: cut 'n' paste moves, childish redirects, and so on. Well done for being so observant! Now, our Australian national football team and Australian national soccer team articles are protected, and no further harm can come to them for a while. User:Woohookitty, an excellent admin whom I recommend if ever you're in need of an excellent admin, has protected the articles, and will presumably keep an eye on them for a while. If he can't, then I'll step up to the plate and do my bit in making Wikipedia just that little bit less childish. Say, speaking of childishness ... what on Earth do you hope to achieve with this and this, hmm? Please try to resist the temptation to escalate conflicts and make things worse than they already are. There's enough non-Aussies laughing at us over this issue as it is. Thanks, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

"pointing out common usage"

You're right, it's not POV to point out common usage. The way you had phrased it originally, however, was. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Fooie Stuff

Why? What are you changing? Also, Should I just leave the Victorian competition as Victorian Premier League even though it's called The Vodaphone Cup at the moment, similarly, NSW Premier Legaue is called the Vodaphone Premier League, should I just leave it as it is? --Executive.koala 15:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Warning

Grant if you vandalise my page again, I will get you blocked for it. 04:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)J is me

Second Warning

I see you have vandalised other's pages as well Grant. You are out of line and I am going to report you now. Your actions are so un0wikipedian in my opinion that I am outraged by them. 04:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)J is me

Eejit

Grant I never have denied that that number was my IP number. I am quite confused as to why you would bother leaving that there except you are a tosser. I am absoluely sick of your shit and if you vandalise that page again, I will move that you be blocked. --Licinius 06:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Just in case you are in doubt, because I see you have left that message at everybody's page who has disagrred with you that is User:60.225.202.61. --Licinius 06:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The positioning of a sockpuppet on my user page

You are descending into the petty Grant, what the hell was that? 10:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)The man from OZ

Re:Thanks

You're welcome. Actually until just now I knew nothing whatsoever about the alleged sockpuppets you are dealing with. An edit to your user page by someone other than you appeared in my watchlist, and naturally aroused my suspicion. It didn't take me long to determine that the edit was not done in good faith.

I've had a look at Talk:Football, and I agree that a sockpuppet check is warranted.User:David Gerard is an Australian with checkuser status; a quiet email to him might bring some resolution.

Judging by the amount of shit that is being slung at you over this, my guess is you're probably not enjoying Wikipedia much at the moment. If there's anything else I can do to help, shout out. Snottygobble 00:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, strike my suggestion you email David. You should probably go through Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser. Snottygobble 00:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm just dropping by after reading your report on WP:VIP. I noticed all their contribs seem to be a few days ago and Snottygobble has issued some blocks that seem to have worked for now. So is it ok to archive the report or does further action need to be taken? Petros471 17:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I'd leave a checkuser request for now. There is a backlog over there, and I don't see any need to add to it, as the reported users have stopped for now. I've added them all the CVU bots blacklist as suspected socks, so hopefully if they start vandalising again they'll get spotted an further action can be taken then. For now probably best to just keep an eye out, and report warn/report for individual cases of vandalism. Cheers, Petros471 11:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeh, that's probably the right thing to do now, it's gone on for long enough to get a proper answer :) Petros471 12:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Grant65

I am removing your sockpuppet tag. It has been there too long and I will no longer permit it. You haveno proof that I am a sockpuppet because I am not. Than your hypocrisy and sanctimony when you were accused was amusing. Get your mate to ban J_is_Me. Whatever. It is going. --The man from OZ 04:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry Accusations

Sorry Grant - I was thrown off by the fact that someone signed the edit in your name. TimTim 10:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

My Username

Hi. In June last year my username User:Jebus Christ was blocked. I discovered recently that the admin responsible User:Secretlondon was involved in protecting the article relating to the profet mahommed images under the banner of freedom of speach. I personally find this hypocritical.

I've started a petition to get my username back. If you support this can you please sign my petition on my talk page User talk:Jebus Christ.

Thanks Jimididit 12:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

History of liquid phonemes in the English language

Hi, I saw you moved Phonological history of English liquids to History of liquid phonemes in the English language. That's fine, but could you also go to Special:Whatlinkshere/History of liquid phonemes in the English language and fix all the double redirects? Thanks! Angr/talk 11:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC) im me!!!!!!!!!!!!! sppyboy796@aol.com

FYI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser#Licinius_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29.2C_Da_Celtic_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29.2C_NSWelshman_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29.2C_The_man_from_OZ_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29.2C_J_is_me_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29.2C_Jimididit_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29 Snottygobble 07:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Licinius has been blocked for a month for sockpuppetry and trolling. The man from OZ and J is me have been blocked indefinitely as sockpuppets. Checkuser evidence was inclusive for Jimididit and NSWelshman, so no action against these accounts is warranted on those grounds. However, Jimididit's trolling against me, David Gerard, SecretLondon, etc, if it continues, is likely to see him banned soon anyhow. Snottygobble 23:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? No evidence was found that my account is in any way linked to licinius. That's not the same as being inconclusive. What was inconclusive is whether or not I am a sockpuppet of Jimididit. All that means is out of all of the users investigated they found two with similar interests or use the same ISP or perhaps it's only based on the fact that Jimididit could see there was no reason to suspect me.

As far as I can tell I had to wear a sockpuppet tag just because of the way I voted in a poll. Grant has never offered any evidence or reasoning. The only form of trolling i'm guilty of is removing my sockpuppet tag prematurely and that was due to ignorance alone. I don't know what your problem is but i'm not it. NSWelshman 09:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)