User talk:Grant65
|
|
Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them:
If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you feel like it, you may leave a note at the new user log too. Mintguy (T) 16:38, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
| Contents |
unfree labor
I see you have been adding unfree labor to many articles regarding slavery. While it might be an appropriate term, I think it is quite unknown and if you want it to stay there, you should write something about it on the unfree labor page. It has already been removed from the slavery page. --Dittaeva 11:11, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Unfree labour is a generic term for chattel slavery, indenture, debt bondage, peonage, etc. As a practising labour historian, I can assure you that there is now a large body of literature devoted to it; if you still think it's "quite unknown", a simple Google search[1] (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&edition=au&q=%22unfree+labour%22+OR+%22unfree+labor%22&btnmeta%3Dsearch%3Dsearch=Search+the+Web) will produce nearly 3,000 hits. The etymology is "unfree" in the sense of being opposite (e.g.) "free people"; I will write a page on unfree labour shortly. I also think it needs to be mentioned on the slavery page.Grant65 (Talk) 01:57, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Great that you will write the article! I did the Google search beforhand to assure me that it at all existed. Even though you get nearly 3000 hits, I still find it unknown and that's why the article is needed. I am shure that we will find room for it the slavery article, but the unfree labor article is needed to back it up. ---Dittaeva 12:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Football
For convenience, this discussion has now been moved to User_talk:Grant65_(football). Cheers.Grant65 (Talk) 03:43, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
I don't know of any other surviving public school games. Eton is rather odd as it has a number of sports that are pretty unique to the school, as well as the field game and the wall game there is also Eton Fives which is a form of handball. Mintguy (T)
Grant there is a general convention on Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Wikiquette), that you don't usually edit other people's comments on article talk pages (even for clarity) and you definitely do not delete other people's comments. If you want to make space and delete stuff it should be archived. I understand your reasons for editing the Talk:Football page, but in the process you deleted some of my comments. Mintguy (T)
(I hope that you don't mind that I edited your
comment, it had said 'but in the process your
deleted...' Me and my alter ego)
Sorry. I hope the tone of the above comment didn't offend. I thought you had deleted stuff when I did a diff for comparision. I'm not really worried anyway, but I thought I would point out that you shouldn't delete other peoples comments on talk pages. Sorry for the confusion. Mintguy (T) 09:52, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Lets talk further because I think the comment you made on my talk User_talk:Philip_Baird_Shearer page needs clarification. So that the discussion is public please see talk:Rugby football Philip Baird Shearer 10:34, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The changes I made to the Football page today were not unannounced look at the comment I made in the Talk:Football Rugby section on Aug 1:
- I think that for clarity integrating and separating the current Rugby text in this article from North American Football (NAF) is desirable. After all the the NAF section not only mentions Rugby but FA rules as well, it also includes dates which pre-date and postdate both! Does anyone have any objections to that? Philip Baird Shearer 19:08, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
You did not object to it so why the comments: (Restored chronology again (sigh); added a new par on Canadian football/rugby.)
As you an I can not seem to agree on this I suggest a Poll see talk:Football Philip Baird Shearer 18:13, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Pacific War
Hi Grant, I saw you added Germany to the participants in the Pacific War. What was their contribution? Just curious. Erik Zachte 21:53, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for answer, interesting. Erik Zachte 10:34, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
X band dispute page
I moved your favorite page to: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment. Good luck! Mackerm 05:47, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
I've decided to rewrite the top part of the X VfD page to make my case clearer, so hopefully there'll be less arguments and more votes. I'll remove most comments, but I'll leave the existing votes. Keep up the good work! Mackerm 04:07, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
Re. your comment on the VfD page: I reverted before I figured out why nobody was voting. I'll revert it to David's last edit when I put up the VfD notice. Or you can do it now if you want, and I'll leave it. Mackerm 06:20, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
Ford Falcon
My disagreement wasn't with the quality of the image at all (in fact, if you go look, you'll find it's one of mine ...) but rather that it seems to be Wikipedia policy to avoid large inline images to help those with slow internet. —Morven 10:09, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
Australian divisions
Hi Grant, I was wondering what your plans were for the Aus. 1st to 5th Division articles, regarding WW2? I don't know how much there is in common between the WW1 and WW2 divisions so would it make more sense for me to move the existing articles to "Australian Xth Division (World War I)" or "Australian 1st Division (1st AIF)"? I know very little about the Australian army in WW2 so I can't really judge for myself. Geoff/Gsl 05:55, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. My inclination is that on Wikipedia, articles are cheap so there is no reason not to have separate articles for seperate periods of a units existence, if it makes sense to do so. I think it is more useful when linking to the "Australian 1st Division" from a WW1 battle to get to an article on the WW1 division. The plain Australian 1st Division article could give an overview of all periods of the unit's existence and link to the division's detailed articles for each war period. That's my preference anyway, and it's the approach I adopted (sort of) with the British WW1 divisions (British 1st Division (World War I) versus British 1st Infantry Division for WW2).
- I have no problem with either approach (all-in-one or separate articles). If the all-in-one approach is taken, I'll remove the navigation table as it only really applies to WW1. If you want to do a separate article for post-WW1 periods, I'll move the existing articles out of the way (or feel free to do it yourself).
- Even if we don't produce any content at this stage, I think sorting out a structure with stub articles could be useful. I do intend to complete the WW1 histories eventually but I don't have much time for it at the moment. Geoff/Gsl 00:54, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I decided to move the existing division articles to "Australian Xth Division (World War I)". The corresponding "Australian Xth Division" article is now clear to be used for some other purpose. Geoff/Gsl 01:56, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Bold text
Just an observation on the use of bold text in articles. I haven't been able to find anything in the Manual of style that says not to use bold in paragraph text but my understanding was that bold was used for highlighting the main and alternate article titles in the lead para (and elsewhere) and emphasising text. In most cases I reckon where you have bolded a name in Australian Army, etc. it can be made into a link. For instance Bushveldt Carbineers instead of Bushveldt Carbineers.
This is no criticism -- as I said, I don't know I am right or that you are wrong. As for your proposed structure to Australian Army, it looks great to me. I'm glad someone has taken it on. Geoff/Gsl 00:57, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- As long as you're comfortable with using bold, that's fine. I imagine everyone has got their own editing style. I, for one, will always put a blank line after a heading and two spaces after a full-stop, despite it contravening the Manual of style, because I find it easier to read the text in the edit box. Sooner or later someone comes along and "fixes" it.
- But I think if an article doesn't exist but you think is worthy of being an article eventually, then making it a link rather than bold is helpful. It gives it a (slim) chance of making it on to Wikipedia:Most wanted articles and it might mean someone knowledgeable will notice it is missing and write the article. Geoff/Gsl 01:40, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Slavery article
Hi Grant, I seem to consider you some kind of authority on the subject of Slavery, so I was wondering if you could take a look at the section that was just removed in the discussion that followed and perhaps leave a message, or deal with it? ---Dittaeva 19:43, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Australian Soccer
Hi. Can you please take a look at talk:Soccer in Australia. I've tried to look up the chap who wrote the pdf document I've linked to but I think he may have retired from Melbourne University, I can't locate his email address. Mintguy (T) 11:31, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Australian Wikipedians
Why haven't you added yourself to the Western Australian section of Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Australia? Our list is pitifully small. - Mark 13:51, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Far East Command
You might like to take a look at British Far East Command and a link to Operation Matador both of which are straying into an area I know you are interested in (Australian 8th Division and The Fall of Singapore). Philip Baird Shearer 01:06, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Pacific War and defensive war
Splendid! /Tuomas 14:58, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
South West Pacific
I think the link to "South West Pacific Command" in ABDA should be "South West Pacific Area Command". What do you think? Philip Baird Shearer 14:39, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Maybe. With re-directs from the other permutations, including "South West Pacific Area", which seems to be the most common form.[2] (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=+%22south+west+pacific+area%22&btnG=Search) Grant65 (Talk) 22:38, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
Rutgers Vs. Princeton, 1869
[deleted duplicate post & heading Grant65 (Talk) 08:58, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)]
I'm having a slight difference of opinion with ExplorerCDT about whether the Rutgers/Princeton game was American football, rugby, or soccer. He says it was nothing like soccer. I disagree, I say it's more like soccer than today's American football, but there also may have been elements of rugby in there. So I put down "football (or soccer) " in place of "football", and we got into a dispute about it (even though I'm a Rutgersman myself). Rickyrab 06:48, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
To Rickyrab (and for the edification of Grant65)...The Princeton/Rutgers rivalry in football died in 1980. They haven't met on the gridiron since. So you are DEAD WRONG in saying it "continues" in your edit on the Football article. ExplorerCDT 07:30, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I have copied these posts to Talk:Football. Please have this debate there or on the Talk:Rutgers University. page. Grant65 (Talk) 08:58, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
I accept your argument and have changed the page accordingly. —ExplorerCDT 15:38, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Royal Australian Navy ships
I used the pennant number because that is the WikiProject Ships standard. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships. -Joseph (Talk) 00:14, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
Battle of Leyte Gulf
I'd like to propose this page for featured article status. However, I can't do that while there's an ongoing edit war. So I would be grateful if you could contribute to Talk: Battle of Leyte Gulf and agree on a wording for the paragraph about it being possibly the largest naval battle in history. Gdr 12:20, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)
- Thank you for replying. Now we just need User:Chino to agree! Gdr 22:47, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)
Battle of Buna-Gona
I notice you linked to this unwritten article on the Pacific War page. "Battle of Buna-Gona" appears to be a wikipedia invention: Google finds only one hit for the phrase once Wikipedia mirrors are discounted. "Battle of Buna" appears at first sight to be a much more popular name for the battle. What was your reasoning behind the change? Gdr 13:42, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)
- Thank you for the references. Gdr 22:47, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)
History of rugby football
You additions are most interesting. But could you please add them to the History of rugby union and summerise them on the Rugby football page. If you read the talk page you will see that it was agreed some time ago that we would try to keep the history on the Rughy Football page to the minimum so that information is not duplicated all over the place. (similar to the problem with the football and history of football)
As you will appreciate there are strong feelings about the 1895 schism and anything seem to increase the importance of RU (like adding informaiton about clubs which stayed with the RU) on the RF page will lead to additional information on RL which takes us away from the original agreement to keep it brief.
Also for brevity, I think that the paragraph on Canadian and American football should stay on the Football page which is clearly referenced in the first line of the section. This is particularly true for Canada because of the confusion generated between the older tradition of rugby and the modern one Rugby Canada. To the casual reader they might think that the rugby played in North America is not the same as the Rugby played in the rest of the world Philip Baird Shearer 01:22, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Pacific battles
Let me know which articles are you concerned about and I will try to fix my errors. Gdr 19:06, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
"Rugby" at Rutgers
In response to your brief message at my Talk page.
- If Rutgers officially refers to it as derived from "rugby" and the historical resources in their libraries and archives point to it as such (which I have reviewed), it won't be changed, and I will continue to revert any attempts to do so until the powers that be officially say otherwise. --ExplorerCDT 11:13, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Bismarck Islands
The Bismarck Islands belong to Papua New Guinea politically, but I think it makes sense to describe military campaigns geographically. And New Guinea is an island as well as a political entity. However, if you feel strongly about this, please revert my change to Template:Campaignbox New Guinea. Gdr 12:10, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC) (P.S. What about Bougainville? The US Amy history puts it in the "Northern Solomons" campaign...)
Operation Matterhorn
I knocked this together today. You might be interested in expanding it as you pointed out that not all the US forces in China were under SEAC. Philip Baird Shearer 15:01, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket
I see you have recently contributed to the article cricket. May I invite you to a new WikiProject to improve the quality and depth of cricket articles on Wikipedia. It's located on Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket. I'm taking the approach of let's see who's interested and let's see which bits we want to improve/expand to begin with. Once we know that, hopefully we can work together to improve Wikipedia's cricket coverage. jguk 16:30, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
- Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
- Multi-Licensing Guide
- Free the Rambot Articles Project
To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:
- Option 1
- I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
- {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
OR
- Option 2
- I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
- {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit§ion=new)| talk)
British Eighth Army
I understand your wish to accurately describe the contribution of Commonwealth soldiers, but the "British" in "British Eighth Army" refers to its command, not to its composition. (It is in this way that the French Foreign Legion is French.) The British Commonwealth supplied the troops but had no say in the army's operations, which were directed by the British government, so I think it wrong to refer to it as "the British Commonwealth's Eighth Army". I think there may be better ways to describe the contribution of Commonwealth soldiers than to change the name of the army they served in. Gdr 02:27, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)
- The nationality of the general is a red herring. My point is that the Eighth Army was controlled by the British Government, not by the British Commonwealth, and therefore it is fair to call it "British" even if the majority of its troops were from other countries. Gdr 17:37, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)
Attack on Darwin
Attack on Darwin is a realy bad name because someone is bound to have had a relative with that name who got mugged and wants to write an article which clashes. So there would have to be an "Attack on Darwin(disambiguation)" page. Although I doubt if many called Darwin could claim that they had had an air raid ;-)
BTW I think it is a most interesting article. I did not realise that the initial raid was so big and that Darwin was so small at that time. I can't imagen where the looters could have stashed their loot. It is not as if they could have popped into the next large town to pawn it! --Philip Baird Shearer 09:24, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
C. Y. O'Connor an Australian engineer?
Hi Grant,
I can certainly understand your reverting my removal of C. Y. O'Connor from category:Australian engineers, but I disagree. category:Australian engineers is a subcategory of both category:engineers by nationality and category:Australian people by occupation. Clearly it is intended to contain engineers of Australian nationality, rather than engineers who did great work in Australia. Are we to introduce a falsehood into Wikipedia simply because it is convenient to do so?
I am pretty keen to revert your revert, but I have no wish to get into an edit war with someone who I recognise as a valued contributor, so I'll hold off. Any suggestions for a compromise?
Oh, and thanks for the New Zealand/Irish fix.
Drew Devereux 22:21, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I see your point. There are numerous categories along the lines of category:Australian engineers and category:Australian Prime Ministers, and I'm sure that many of them contain entries for non-Australians. Presumably it is standard practice to include people of importance to Australia, without quibbling too much about their actual nationality. I withdraw my objection.
I didn't mean to conflate Australian with Australian-born. Obviously there are many Australians that are not Australian-born. Possibly, O'Connor took out Australian citizenship and was therefore an Australian; since we don't really know, I am glad that the article itself doesn't assert that O'Connor was Australian. But I no long have any problem with his inclusion in Australian categories.
Drew Devereux 00:07, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Long Tan
Hi, I'm just saying g'day because I read the Long Tan article and I know that there will be a film made of it in the near future. According to the painting, most of the Australian soldiers were armed with SLRs.
A mate of mine was a sailor who was in the Malaysian Emergency and told me a story about SLRs vs M-16s that he had heard at the time. It goes like this:
- A firefight between Australian troops and some Viet Cong ends with a VC retreat. One soldier, spying a retreating VC, raised his M-16 and fired a few rounds into the man's back. Incredibly, the VC kept running - the bullets had hit but did not stop the man from running. Frustrated, the Australian soldier fired again and hit the VC again. Again the VC did not drop. Totally fed up, the soldier threw down his M-16 and grabbed an SLR off a nearby soldier. He fired once, and the VC was killed instantly.
Do you know anything about the SLR vs M-16 argument? Do you know if Australian soldiers in Vietnam preferred one over the other? I'm just curious. --One Salient Oversight 08:30, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
M-16 v. FN FAL (SLR)
G'day back Neil. I'm not a gun nut, but the main difference between the two is calibre: the SLR, using 7.62mm (.308) ammo would tend to have a head start over the 5.56mm M-16 in terms of stopping power, although the Yanks claim otherwise, and terminal velocity (etc.) would also come into it. BTW I believe a major criticism of the SLR was that it was difficult to switch to full automatic fire and the recoil (from the heavier bullet) was so great that it was often impractical anyway. Grant65 (Talk) 11:42, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not a gum nut, I mean gun nut, either! Definitely calibre is an issue. If you go here (bottom of the page) (http://world.guns.ru/assault/as59-e.htm) you will find that the 7.62mm NATO round has more "stopping power" (in terms of energy when hitting the target). The FN FAL, however, was not a reliable weapon when being fired Automatically (its recoil meant that each subsequent bullet fired after the first would be at a greater height and more likely to miss its target). This meant that the Australian version (the L1A1 or "SLR") did not have automatic fire capability. If you wanted to fire more than one round, you had to press the trigger more than once.
- The US military doctrine argued that the 5.56mm NATO round fired from an M16 had about the same amount of stopping power as the slower 7.62mm round, but only at short range. Moreover, because the M16 was automatic, it was more likely for an M-16 user to hit an enemy soldier with more than one bullet. Because the M16 was light ("Plastic fantastic" as my sailor friend says) there was less chance of an inaccurate burst of fire. Additionally, I have also heard it said that the 5.56mm round is more likely to wound than kill, which means that the enemy has to use up resources to rescue the soldier rather than use those resources to attack (which can happen if the soldier is dead, and not wounded). Finally, I have also heard that US military doctrine changed in response to the use of artillery and air support. The 7.62mm round was very effective over long distances, but engagements in Vietnam were usually in the jungle and were short range. Moreover, if longer range attacks were needed, the platoon could just call in air strikes and artillery barrages.
- My queries concern the reasons why many Australian troops kept using the SLR in Vietnam despite these changes in military understanding by the yanks. The lack of Automatic fire on the SLR meant that Australian troops were more likely to fire accurately and to use up less ammunition. Since many attacks by the VC and NVA were "human wave" attacks by soldiers who were often fanatical, wounding them with lower calibre rounds was a bit silly since no one would rescue them anyway and they would just keep coming. The SLR killed rather than wounded these soldiers. The other concern - artillery and air strikes - often relied upon the good will of the US forces which were not always happy to oblige their Aussie allies.
- What I'm trying to determine is a way to understand all this mush. Why was the SLR used so well in Vietnam, and only replaced by the Steyr in the early 90s, long after the US had decided that the 5.56mm round was better for military docrtine?
--One Salient Oversight 22:57, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The M-16 was eventually used by some Australian units (such as the SAS), prior to the Steyr being adopted. I know that the Steyr is available in both 5.56mm and 9mm(!) versions, which may explain why it replaced both of the older weapons in one swoop. But I'm no expert. Grant65 (Talk) 12:36, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
ketchup
Hello. I find it difficult to get worked up about ;o) What could be more foolish than two men having a protracted argument about a sauce ;o) I dunno. Certainly in my house and in the useages I can remember from people saying it there's a lot of people who do say tomato sauce. Maybe I've just got a weird family and friends (in fact I KNOW I have). But also people in the north often say "red sauce". But, do as thou wilt. You'll not get argument from me. --bodnotbod 03:58, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
WASP
Thanks for your addition on use outside the U.S. I have a question that you might know the answer to: In Australia, is the meaning more similar to the historic or the current meaning of "WASP"? That is, does it indicate a certain upper class descended from early settlers? (Since Australia is entirely peopled with criminals :), I imagine that it does not, but I may be wrong.) Or does it indicate any Protestant of European descent, or perhaps any Protestant whose ancestors came from the British Isles? Respond on Talk:WASP, if you would. Thanks. —E. Underwood 16:39, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
(Tannin knocks sand out of his ear!) Tannin
Civil War
See the sources for both of those battles. They are both considered battles of the American Civil War by the US Govt because they involved Union armies interacting with Native Americans during the Civil War. It is better to include them with the Civil War than to orphan them, and it won't confuse anyone (the combatants are clearly labelled Union and Indian). Removing the references to the Civil War serves no positive purpose. --brian0918™ 02:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- If you do a search on google for "bear river" OR "sand creek" battle "civil war" (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22bear+river%22+OR+%22sand+creek%22+battle+%22civil+war%22&btnG=Search), you'll see that these two battles are well-accepted to be parts of the Civil War. So far, I've only looked into the Sand Creek battle more, and it involved troops who were volunteers specifically for the Civil War, who were assigned to protect territories from Confederate or Indian attacks. Bear River was probably similar. --brian0918™ 11:11, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Submarine names
A question: is it Wikipedia style to italicise the names of Japanese submarines? The names of German subs aren't italicised, e.g. U-47.Grant65 (Talk) 00:00, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant that HMS Kite is an example of an article that consistently italicises submarine names.
- Anyway, it seems that authors who italicise ordinary ship names also italicise sub,arine names. To hand I have Business in Great Waters by John Terraine, which writes submarine names like U 29 (italicised, with a space). DANFS writes them like U-123 or I-10 (italics, with a hyphen; see e.g. [3] (http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/a13/atik.htm), [4] (http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/r6/riddle.htm)). On the other hand, the Royal Navy's web site writes U-29 — but then it doesn't italicise ship names either; see e.f. [5] (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/static/pages/3514.html).
- So I think that since we have chosen to use italics for ship names we should be consistent and use italics for "nameless" vessels to. Gdr 16:21, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
Westies
Thanks for the help with the Westie page. I hope a Sydney-sider will spot the glaring gaps and help fill it out. That is why I banged out the characteristics bit under the header Auckland, I don't know if it is the same accross the ditch. Love your work. L-Bit 10:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hal Colebatch
Hi Grant,
I had a couple of issues with your changes to Hal Colebatch, and have made some reverts that I would like to explain.
Firstly, The reason I removed the description of the wharf crisis is because I am currently working on an article specifically on the crisis, and I intended for Hal Colebatch to link to it. In hindsight, you are quite right to put the description back in; I can remove it or cut it down a bit once the article is written, but until then it should be there.
Secondly, in my research into the wharf crisis, it has become quite clear that it was not actually a "strike" in the proper sense of the word, as the lumpers never refused work at any time. It is also untrue that the ship was in breach of quarantine. The Labour movement has mythologised the event and there are a lot of inaccuracies floating around. If you're interested, This article (http://www.hrnicholls.com.au/nicholls/nichvo15/vol1510b.htm) exposes a number of Labor myths. Unfortunately it is heavily anti-labor biased, and perpetuates as many myths as it exposes. I have slightly altered the description to remove what inaccuracies I am aware of. I wasn't sure if you object to the use of the word riot, so I changed it to crisis.
Finally, I dispute your NPOV view on the quote. If I said that it is difficult to see how Colebatch could have acted differently, then that would be non-neutral editorialising and therefore inappropriate. However for me to say that De Garis said it, is an indisputable fact and entirely neutral. De Garis is a respected Western Australian historian whose Masters Thesis was a biography of Colebatch, and is therefore an excellent primary source from which to draw a quote. Furthermore, having said that public opinion was against him at the time, I feel that it is balanced to state that later historians have judged the matter differently. If it is biased to state De Garis's opinion, then it is equally biased to state contemporary public opinion. I have put back the quote, but changed "later historians have concluded..." to "later historians have argued that..." so as not to appear to be giving later historians the last word on the matter.
Drew Devereux 23:30, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Australian English
Thanks for your edit positively reworking Kylie into the article :-) and producing a much better sentence. In my defence, I offer up that it was late and the edit inserting her name was ungrammatical. --AYArktos 07:52, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (military units)
I noticed your cleanup work at Battle of Crete, and since you showed some concern for how units were referred to I thought you might want to join discussion of the proposed naming conventions for military units. — B.Bryant 18:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Football (soccer)
Hi Grant,
I like your new paragraph on football naming. The whole naming debate goes on and on around in circles, so I think it is good that we have acknowledged the fact that the sport has different names briefly without having to descend in to the usual petty debates.
On another note, I have reverted many of the changes by User:Bigeazy (especially where errors of fact were involved), though agree that a streamlined playing field section is warranted (with a specific article linked).
Thanks, --Daveb 07:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
3RR on State of Origin
I have blocked the anon who revert warred with you on this article because of a violation of the 3RR policy. You commented in the edit field that you could revert this forever, but that is something you might refrain from. If you break the 3RR policy, you will be blocked aswell. Just FYI. See Wikipedia:Three revert rule for more information. Inter\Echo 12:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
The empire strikes back
Grant you are probably watching it anyway but please see Talk:Middle East Campaign#The emipre strikes back. Philip Baird Shearer 15:51, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)