User talk:Grant65/Archive May07-Jul07

Borneo Surgeon
Hi Grant. It arrived today - what a cracking read. I read a book about Weary Dunlop a while ago (completely by chance, before my Wikipedia-related BL shenanigans had started - my sister's boyfriend is into WW2 in a big way and it was lying around her house), and Taylor's story strikes me as similar in a lot of ways.

I've had a spree recently of book-buying, all BL-related. When the last two have arrived, I shall do a gurt big overhaul of the article as I have come to realise there's a lot missing from it!

Anyroads, thanks for the heads-up about Firkins. Is you ISP acting any better these days? I could still email the War Illustrated material, if you want. Like the kangaroo paws on your user page, by the way! Jasper33 15:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Theater/theatre/war
Hi Grant, I apologize; When I went to the page Battle of Midway I converted others to that title because "Pacific Theatre of World War II" seemed more specific than "Pacific War". I think all battles that took place on this front should have the same partof name. Is a compromise "Pacific Front of World War II"? I am happy to collaborate and change pages I have editted. HHermans 02:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess I'll just switch the two letters around on all the edits I made then. HHermans 03:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Allies of World War II
I believe I was right in including Poland in the intro given the fact that France is mentioned there. The source I cited states:

"Jan Zielonka, lecturer in European politics at Oxford University, says: "Historically, Polish contribution to the war has never been sufficiently acknowledged. Poland provided the fourth largest Allied army in the war yet they were excluded from marching in the celebration because Stalin wanted it so.""

Furthermore an acknowledgment by the British Prime Minister, the British Foreign Office, and a respectable newspaper like the Financial Times, are objective and reliable sources.

Additionally please see Polish contribution to World War II and note that France and Poland had comparable troop contributions in the war while France came up short in other areas of the war effort such as resistance and intelligence.

If you disagree please answer on either this page or my talk. JRWalko 02:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If that's the case then I shall fight this on the discussion page! :-) Thanks. JRWalko 02:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Need source now!
if you don't provide sources, I will accuse you of vandalism? If you don't give resonable explanation. this is vandalism. Consider yourself warned!! 168.253.18.31 01:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Use of dashes and en/mdashes
Hi Grant, in answer to your question, the use of dashes is not a huge issue but it has come up lots of times in the past. Encyclopedic entries do not use dashes. This is a quote from Wikipedia: Note that The Chicago Manual of Style limits the use of the en dash to just two purposes: to indicate ranges of time, money, or other amounts (or in certain other cases where it replaces the word to); and in place of a hyphen in a compound adjective when one of the elements of the adjective is an open compound or when one of the elements is already hyphenated.[8] The above examples by Chicago Manual of Style rules:
 * Notre Dame beat Miami 31–30
 * New York–London flight
 * Mother-daughter relationship
 * The Supreme Court voted 5–4 to uphold the decision.
 * The McCain-Feingold bill
 * Taft-Hartley Act
 * Bose-Einstein statistics

I have seen this issue discussed and the general consensus is that if a comma or semicolon works just as well, then a dash is discouraged. BTW try to tone down your responses, that would be appreciated. IMHOBzuk 13:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC).
 * Grant, thanks for your note. As you indicated, dashes are acceptable in Wikipedia but I again reiterrirate that they are not the preferred style in encyclopedic entries due to the natural predilection for editors to use them in a type of "breathless" style. FWIW, I enjoy your submissions in aircraft articles as you seem to have a passion for the subject as well as a good knowledge of the role of the "Aussies." Bzuk 12:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC).


 * The following comment was intended for Bzuk. Grant, please ignore it. Bill, are right that the most recent edition of the Chicago Manual of Style calls for en dash to separate numbers as in Notre Dame beat Miami 31–30 and The Supreme Court voted 5–4 to uphold the decision but please be aware that almost nobody outside the University of Chicago agrees with this most recent revised change in the standard. I don't think you'll find a major U.S. newspaper that uses anything but the ordinary hyphen for those two contexts. As for actual ranges, the en dash is preferred, and you will find the great majority of Wikipedia articles about dead persons use an en dash in the very first sentence, between the dates (or years) of birth and death. Kindly provide a link on my talk page to a Wikipedia page that deprecates the use of en dashes for ranges of time and amount, or deprecates the use of em dashes to indicate an abrupt change of thought.


 * Respectfully, Anomalocaris 21:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Sarimbun Beach
Grant, one of the Japanese main objectives was to capture Tengah airfield once they landed on the beach, for whatever reason I don't know. Honestly my sources is from a novel written by a former war veteran who fought at Singapore, but I believe it's authentic and that's where i got it from. I don't know what other info I have to relay to ya, but I contribute from time to time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolcott (talk • contribs) June 3, 2007

RfC
Just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on myself in response to the concerns raised during my RfA over my actions in the Gary Weiss dispute. The RfC is located here and I welcome any comments or questions you may have. CLA 19:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response and comment. CLA 06:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Professor S. Warren Carey
Hi Grant65, here is the reference that clinched it for me. Sorry for the delay. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion |✍ contributions  05:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC) "Professor S. Warren Carey (as he preferred to be known) personified a philosophy of synthesis/integration that lies at the heart of large-scale disciplines such as geology and astronomy. This philosophy is complementary to but sometimes seen to be in conflict with the reductionist approach that characterises so much modern science. He was also a strong proponent of the mantra of 'We are blinded by what we think we know; disbelieve if you can'."

From the same source. I feel that naming in Australia is complex with regard to formal and informal. Carey was very formal and correct, apparently due to his Sydney Uni days. He would have expected, deserved and received the full title above. Calling people by their first name was considered pretty familiar at that time, Mr. 65 :), truncation even more so. Regards, ☻ Fred|☝ discussion |✍ contributions  06:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC) "'The Prof.' was always rather formally dressed, even on excursions, and addressed both staff and students very formally as 'Mr' or 'Miss' (or other appropriate term). Woe betide staff or students who were less formal in their address. This formality was a carry-over from his own school and university days. Close colleagues addressed him as 'Sam' but he always signed himself as 'S. Warren Carey', his chosen style."

I will make sure Sam gets a mention in the Biography section. Another interesting quote from that source mentions Capt. Carey: "The Inter-Allied Services Department (ISD) had been established in March 1942 as an organization for subversion/sabotage behind enemy lines. Perhaps its most famous exploits were Operations Jaywick and Rimau in the Singapore region. The first unit formed in ISD was the Z Special Unit ('secret and unorthodox tasks'), which Carey joined on 1 July 1942."

He had a cover and a secret role in New Guinea. Happy editing, ☻ Fred|☝ discussion |✍ contributions  04:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)
The May 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Organized Labour project
Hi Grant, I saw your name at the WP:UNION page, and I thought I'd stop by and say hello and welcome. I'm always impressed by the Australian contingent on Wikipedia - there seems to be a strong core of editors committed to both AZ and WP. I look forward to seeing you around. Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 16:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you
chck the email for 'e-mail this user' much? SatuSuro 12:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

World War II page
On the World War II page some people are trying to list the USSR as a 'co-belligerent' Axis power (see Co-belligerent on the talk page). I read that you were opposed to this in the Axis powers of World War II article, as am I. We need you there to help educate these people.--Ilya1166 13:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

AWM images
Hi Grant, there's another discussion of whether pre-1955 AWM images are out of copyright at Possibly unfree images which you might be interested in participating in. I obviously think that they're OK. --Nick Dowling 10:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

World War II and the Second World War
Just as an aside, the fact that Australians now refer to the conflict as World War II is an interesting development as the term is definitely linked to the United States. Retiring US War Secretary Stimson and US Navy Secretary Forrestal advised President Truman in 1945 to provide a standard terminology, "as a matter of simplicity and to insure uniform terminology," the term "World War II" was recommended and it become common useage. Truman ensured that it appeared in the official Federal Register and was used consistantly from that point on on all government documents. Prior to the official approval, Time magazine had labelled the outbreak of hostilities in September 1939 as the beginning of World War II and continued to use the name from that point on. Historians have been using "The Second World War" as a term of reference in the United Kingdom and Canada, but I was unaware that Australia also has adopted "World War II." One of the common offshoots of the Americanism is "World War Two" but the equally common "WW2" and "WWII" also frequently appear. FWIW Bzuk 13:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC).

Snowy Evans
Thanks! I didn't know there was that much info on Snowy Evans. ۝ ۞ ░ 16:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Operation STARVATION
Using SC is the convention, regardless how offensive you may find it. I'm not so fanatic I care if you revert that, but your Pacific War page revert took other changes with it. Next time, maybe an edit rather than just a revert? Trekphiler 18:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Kegeln
Hi Grant, I was in the middle of fixing the Barossa German article reference to Kegeln when you added an edit. Have a look and see what you think. Cheers Ozdaren 10:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The Barossa is also home to Kegeln, a variety of nine-pin lane bowling (Kegelbahn), based on the traditional German game similar to ally skittles. The Barossa town of Tanunda still features the Tanunda Kegel Club, founded in 1858.
 * It's a hard one. The club web page calls it kegel with out the n and alternates a lot with the term skittles. The trouble is in German with out the n just means skittle; the n on the end if the word is not capitalised is the verb to bowl (skittling) and when it is capitalised means more than one kegel or skittle (I really don't think cone is the right translation). One way to fix this is to perhaps change the article to Tanunda Kegel Club or even Tanunda Kegelbahn. According to all the sources I have found it is the last one in Australia and possibly the whole southern hemisphere. If the word kegel is used to describe the sport it is perhaps a degree of creolisation of the original German. Ozdaren 14:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Dates
There is no "approved" style but generally speaking whenever dates are established, it is a matter of consistency to use one style or another in order for readers with a preference setting to "read" the style of their choice. If a reader has chosen to read the dates as June 26, 2007 then the editor who has typed in 26 June 2007 has created a proper link for the date preference to work.

Now for the rationale: There are a zillion ways to express dates which reverberate around the "style of writing" that is chosen. The common or familiar style of writing usually provides a June 26, 2007 format. The "familiar" style is appropriate for letters, notes and casual correspondence and will be found in many quotations and if that is the style that was used then the editor should quote the date format exactly as originally written. In writing for publication, the familiar style brings up one awkward instance in that it creates a double comma whenever a phrase or clause is used, for example, "On June 26, 2007, the aircraft was repaired" looks graphically clumsy so many editors choose to express the statement as "On June 26, 2007 the aircraft was repaired" but that leads to other complications as the phrase or clause is not properly identified.

A more "formal", academic or technical style is the "26 June 2007" format that has been in use for historical and research work which is the closest to the encyclopedic format of Wikipedia. After rehashing this choice of style with many of my editors, I began to come to the rationalization that the choice of style is dictated by the audience of the work. For example, I have written for both a childrens' and adult readership in my books on aviation. With the reader in mind, my editor has dictated that the familiar style is appopriate for a younger reader who would be more comfortable with a date convention that they use frequently. However, the adult reader of a "serious" work on aviation history often would be presented with the historic/research style of dating. One advantage is that this style gets around the double comma dilemma with "On 26 June 2007, the aircraft was repaired."

Now to complicate matters entirely, there does seem to be a difference in style of dating between British and American editors. The writing styles in the United States even for a research work gravitate to one style only, the familiar. There is a writing dictum that states that the editor (line, technical or overall) chooses the style guide for publication and that the writer (author, screenwriter, etc.) follows that style. Many publishing houses provide what they call a "house guide" wherein they choose a certain set of guides for punctuation, paragraphing, quotations, citations, referencing (don't get me started on this) and dates. As you can probably gather by now, I am an editor but, as well, I have also been and continue to be an author. I have my feet in both "worlds" and understand the contradictions and ramifications of all the different styles that are in play. I tend to use a "Chicago Style" which is an offshoot of the research-oriented "Modern Language Association Style" (MLA) used by academics and cataloguing librarians rather than the "American Psychological Association" (APA) guide much in vogue at universities due to its simplified style. APA guides were used to create the first Wikipedia templates intended for the editor who was unfamiliar with referencing. I find that that was an unfortunate choice because there are a few inherent flaws in the APA guide, but nonetheless, it's out there.

At this point, I can see that your eyes are glazing over, but once I get started and up to steam, I might as well finish. My personal demons include my being a Canadian editor and in Canada, editors are subjected to both a British and American bias as to editing styles and guides, as well, my background as a Librarian (I retired after 36 years in sundry libraries, with a university background as a cataloguer/researcher with my earliest ventures being mainly "scratch" cataloguing (referencing by hand) and finishing as a High School librarian where nearly all cataoguing was done in an electronic download of available but often altered or "adopted" references.) has led me to consider myself first a librarian then an author and editor (with screenwriter and film director- don't ask, another long story here... thrown in).

As to dates, again, no "approved" style for Wikipedia aircraft articles. I have seen them expressed in a variety of formats including "6-26-2007" which has the added fun of always trying to figure out whether the editor is using "date, month, year" or "month, date, year" conventions, especially when "06,08,2007" crops up. If a style is established for an article, I tend to follow the original/first editor's style preferences but invariably there is a mishmash of styles used so when that happens, it is easiest to go back to one style, and stick to it. Since many of the Wikipedia articles are academic or scholarly research pieces, I usually then continue in a formal or academic way (excepting that an American editor would be unfamiliar with this style of dating, but that is very understandable and I tend to defer to an "American" style when that predominates, see "Hap" Arnold versus Avro Vulcan). FWIW, mate... Bzuk 12:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC).

Proposed deletion of Paul Kelly (U.S. musician)
Paul Kelly (U.S. musician) has been proposed for deletion. An editor felt this person might not be notable enough for an article. Please review Notability (people) for the relevant guidelines. If you can improve the article to address these concerns, please do so.

If no one objects to the deletion within five days by removing the "prod" template, the article may be deleted without further discussion. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but if an editor is still not satisfied that it meets Wikipedia guidelines, it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. NickelShoe (Talk) 13:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Perth Meetup Notification

 * You are invited to a meetup of Western Australian Wikipedians on the 19th August 2007 in the tearooms of Tranby House. Please sign on the Meetup/Perth/3 if you are able to attend. you recieved this message as your account has been active during May, June 2007 and your user page is listed in the Category:Wikipedians in Western Australia Gnangarra 03:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Grant65
Rfa-notice


 * Grant, you need to update the Requests for adminship page to include your RfA, else no-one will know its there. Cheers.  &mdash;Moondyne 04:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, sorry, I've been offline for a while. It looks like you've finished up the job and are under way. Good luck. Hesperian 05:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ringer Edwards
Ah, how did I miss that on DYK? What an interesting story - I'd always wondered whether the scene in A Town Like Alice was based on a real-life event, and now I know.

I dropped by here yesterday to leave you a note about a book but saw you were up for Adminship so beetled over to give my tupenceworth, and then promptly forgot to leave the message for you. Stupido! I've got my hands on (my grandmother's) copy of Ring of Fire by Dick Horton. I haven't read it properly yet, but there's an interesting section on the birth of the SRD which at some point I'll get round to adding (another on my long to do list!).

You'll make a great admin, Grant. Good on you for going for it - here comes that hoary old phrase but the project really does need more people like you. I'll stop before I embarrass you any further! Cheers, Jasper33 10:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Away
Grant |  Talk  02:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Promoted
Congratulations. Hesperian 05:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Woo hoo! 54 supports, and not a single neutral let alone oppose.  Well done you. Do you get a big shiny badge? Jasper33 15:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Administrator
It's my pleasure to notify you that, consensus having been reached, you're now an administrator. You may wish to read the reading list and how-to guide at your convenience, but are in no way required to do so. Most sysop actions are reversible, the exceptions being history merges and deleting pages (but it's a good idea to be careful with all of them, especially in your first week or two). Of course, you're still welcome to help in the most important way - creating and editing articles. Again, congrats on becoming an admin. -- Pakaran 05:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well done, laddie. Cheers, Ian Rose 05:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * congratulations on your mop Gnangarra 05:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well done SatuSuro 11:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * All the best to another Aussie admin --Steve (Stephen)talk 23:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No worries. Any questions, shout. Hesperian 04:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)
The June 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 13:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Information on Z Special Unit
If you can't beat them, join them.

Grant I have some information on Z Special Unit that I would like to e-mail/send you so that you can/may add the info to the Z Special Unit page if you would like. The information comes straight from the horses mouth - Z Special Unit Association. Cheers, ANZAC1974
 * In case you don't see it, my reply is on your talk page. Grant  |  Talk  07:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Grant, I'm seeing my grandfather this weekend, I'll collect the stuff off him that scan it during the week and then e-mail it to you so that you can have a read and enter whatever you like on Z Special Unit. --Anzac1974 04:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)