User talk:Grant65

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them:

• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

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)

---

Older posts have been archived to: User talk:Grant65 (archive).

Contents 1 Rfc 2 Air HQ Western Desert 3 Many Happy Returns 4 Four Policemen 5 Milhist coordinators election has started 6 Commonwealth Aces, and general irritation at wiki's limitations. 7 AfD nomination of Four Policemen 8 (NZ) 9 Marseilles #17 9.1 Talk page 9.2 Doubts 10 Help 11 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008) 12 Association football articles 13 Western New Guinea 14 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008) 15 Étaples Mutiny 16 Pacific War 17 Image copyright problem with Image:Cesare2a.jpg 18 Leander class template 19 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008) 20 P-40 21 Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-08 Curtiss P-40 22 Was there a No. 19 Squadron RAAF? 23 IPL Sponsorship 24 Civilian casualties on Pacific Islands 25 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008) 26 Russell Brown Desert Warriors 27 IL2 28 Three Came Home 29 JWC 30 Pacific War

[edit] Rfc

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

[edit] Air HQ Western Desert

As a courtesy I am advising you that in a discussion on the above in my Talk Page I have referred to a comment you made in the Operation Battleaxe Talk Page regarding the use of "RAF". I thought you might be interested. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 09:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Many Happy Returns

Happy Birthday Grant,

I hope everything is OK,

Regards,

Dave

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

[edit] Four Policemen

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Four Policemen, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Four Policemen. Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Milhist coordinators election has started

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 22:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Commonwealth Aces, and general irritation at wiki's limitations.

Don't fear, I come in peace.

Having looked over some of the articles it appears the Aussie elements are seriously neglected, which is quite outrageous when you consider their achievements. Consider that the majority scored their kills early in the war, against a Luftwaffe fighter arm that was well trained. Then consider the overly publicised American aces that scored their kills against a rapidly deteriorating Luftwaffe, that were just kids with a few hours flying time. At present we have only 30 odd. I propose putting together a small task force to right these wrongs. How about it? Dapi89 (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Four Policemen

An editor has nominated Four Policemen, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four Policemen and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] (NZ)

If I can play devil's advocate, I think the correct form is "No. X Squadron RNZAF" and it is incorrect to include "(NZ)" or "(New Zealand)". The Article XV squadrons article presents a clear picture. Under the terms of Article XV, these were just as much RNZAF squadrons as those that served in the Pacific. The only difference in principle was that they were formed for service under RAF operational control. 75 Squadron was different in that it was formed before Article XV and was specifically an RAF unit, transferred to the RNZAF after the war. Cheers, Grant 01:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have seen a large amount of WW 2 vintage "bumph", including pilot's logs, squadron paperwork and other forms, both from the RAF and the RNZAF which uses the formula "X(NZ) Squadron" and sometimes X(New Zealand) Squadron". Very rarely does one see "No. X Squadron RNZAF" for the article XV units. It might not have been strictly correct "form" but those who did the paperwork at the time seemed to think it was. Have a look at this site Warbird site and this RNZAF aircraft. Gerard Morris in Spitfire, the New Zealand Story (Auckland, NZ: Reed Books, 2000. ISBN 0 7900 0696 0) goes into the subject in some detail and comes to similar conclusions Cheers.Minorhistorian (talk) 12:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The point is not what they were called at the time but what they actually were and how we as an encylopedia put that across. No. 258 Squadron RAF had no "brackets", while No. 75 (New Zealand) Squadron RAF was officially called that. Both were RAF units predominantly staffed by NZers. Similarly, the Article XV squadrons were officially RNZAF units, whether or not the RNZAF chose/chooses to see them that way, and using "XXX(NZ) Squadron" in relation to them does not adequately make that point. As well as being technically incorrect: see, for example, the RAF official histories like No. 487 Squadron RNZAF. Cheers, Grant 15:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The point is that this is what they called themselves at the time! An encyclopaedia, if it has any claims to be authoritative, must take historical precedent into account, otherwise it is rewriting or bending history to reflect it's own concepts. Yes, "XXX(NZ) Squadron" might be "technically incorrect", but to dismiss primary documentation, which was written at the time, as being wrong is also wrong. Rewriting the Article XV squadrons page to adequately reflect your thoughts about this might be worthwhile, but it also should be emphasised that the units more often than not referred to themselves as "XXX(NZ) Squadron (or "XXX(RAAF) Squadron for that matter). CheersMinorhistorian (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, I think the articles are in the right locations ("No. 48X Squadron RNZAF") and it's right that a common name "48X(NZ) Sqn" at the time is mentioned in the first sentence. My main problem is with the guff at the bottom of all the articles on RNZAF Art. XV squadrons, which is both inaccurate and better dealt with in the RNZAF article and the Art. XV article.

As an aside, I guess what we see here, in part, are the different attitudes between Kiwis and Aussies both then and now. Grant 01:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah HA! There I have you, cause I'm both an Australian and a New Zealander, so I don't have a "different attitude" except maybe the colonial bolshiness that the Poms don't like! If you look at the No. 486 Squadron RNZAF page you'll see that "486(NZ) Squadron" was used for the intro and at the start of the History section, after that it is 486 Sqn. or plain 486. Once the context has been set most people know that all are referring to the same subject. (The other problem I have with "No. XXX Squadron RNZAF" is that it is cumbersome and doesn't read well. You would be surprised at how off-putting it is for a lay-person, who (for example) doesn't know much about "official" or "correct" RAF parlance, to be constantly reading such titles.)

I would be the first to say that the guff on the Article XV units needs stern revision. The trick is being able to provide a lucid translation...personally I've spread myself a bit thin so I'm going to concentrate on finishing some of the other jobs I've started in Wikipedia. Regards. Minorhistorian (talk) 11:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

But who do you support in the cricket and rugby? ;-)[User:Grant65|Grant]] 05:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, since you asked...I used to support NZ in rugby. Not any more! Three rugby World Cups ago the reaction here in New Zealand to the All Blacks losing to the Springboks in the final was so bloody pathetic and childish I lost all interest in the national team, and I've never regained it because the same thing's happened twice over again. Instead I really enjoy the NRL - I came from Parramatta so the Eels http://www.parraeels.com.au/ are my sentimental favourites...

As for the cricket? I was brought up with my dad's stories about watching "The Don", Keith Miller, Lindwall, Benaud, Stackpole etc in their prime; I got to watch Lillee, Thomson Marsh and the Chappells when I was knee high to an ant...so I (mumble) still quietly root for Aus...but I don't mind cheering NZ success as well. ;-)Minorhistorian (talk) 12:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marseilles #17

Indeed it is Wübbe that states that the Hurricane I V7775 was piloted by Flt.Lt. Byers and that he was taken POW by the Germans. Unfortunately both Hans Ring and Jochen Prien in their JG 27 chronicles have a gab in the early September 1941 timeframe. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur in your opinion! Let's take it out. Maybe it should be left in as a Wiki comment so that once more information materializes we still remember what was stated before. I hope that Wübbe did not make this up and some other source confirms his view. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I checked Kurowski, he states that the Hurricane was on reconnaissance duties. Does this add value? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page

I added you to the list of maintaining editors on Marseille's talk page. Hope you don't mind.MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Doubts

In the article is a sentence "Moreover, Brown lists several occasions on which Marseille could not have downed as many aircraft as claimed". I sort dislike this generalising statement because it leaves room for speculation on the degree of doubt. If possible may I ask you to reference in the table which claims are in doubt, similarly to the 15 September 1942. I feel that we have gone through a lot of work on the table and this sentence sort of does not fit in. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, fine with me. But do you agree that we should be a bit more precise? MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help

Chuq is threatening to have me blocked, simply because I am reverting the words association football to association football (soccer). I tried explaining that the soccer tag must be added as it's what most Australians call it, not football. If I'm blocked I need you to help prove what I was doing was not 'valdalisim'. 121.219.30.130 (talk) 04:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring your false "Australian English" argument (a significant amount of the media and supporters use "football" - yes, many do use "soccer" too - but not exclusively - and this is a discussion for another page), it's all detailed on the anon's talk page:

• My reasoning is that having such a lengthy/overly descriptive term in a heading or template is messy and unnecessary - there is only one type of "association football".
• I explained that because both "soccer" and "football" are used in Australia, the Wikipedia wide standard of "association football" or "football (soccer)" applies.
• He claimed he already discussed it, when his contribution history showed he had not.
• He claimed "Until then I WILL keep changing it." which is confrontational and indicates he is not willing to discuss the changes.
• His previous edits such as this are entirely provocational, again showing he is not willing to work with other editors.
• When I commented about this, he completely ignored me and continued to revert the articles.
• I attempted to gain consensus at locations such as Talk:Association football and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football (soccer) in Australia but didn't get a reply.
• While I did revert the articles on some occasions, I also attempted to compromise (in this example, added a lead sentence with "Association football (soccer)" to the section, so that the heading itself wouldn't have to use a lengthy/descriptive term), but the anon ignored it and continued to edit the heading.
• My warning template was specifically about the disruption (i.e. continual mass changes affecting a large number of articles/templates without discussion), not so much about the content. At least it prompted the anon to actually post on talk pages about it, something he was completely unwilling to do before, so it did have the desired affect.
• 95% of his contribution history has been changing "Association football" to "Association football (soccer)", which does match the editing patterns of a repeatedly banned user. Despite only being here for two days he also knew exactly where to go to find someone who shares his views. I admit this is a big assumption on my part and I may be wrong, but the pieces all fit together.

Again, if you wish to discuss the actual content of the edit, I suggest somewhere more appropriate such as the pages I mentioned above or similar. -- Chuq (talk) 11:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Association football articles

In response to your comment I'll just copy what I have written before:

"Soccer" fans are not "trying to change the word usage" in Australia. They have always called it that. It is just that now, there are more fans of the sport, it is talked about more, and people pay more attention to it. Media: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Supporter/fan sites: Melb Syd SA Tas General Even BigFooty, an AFL-focused site, has forums called Football board and Football Australia which are about association football.

I'm not claiming everyone calls it "football"; I'm not claiming only association football can call it that; I'm not claiming no-one can call it soccer. I'm just claiming that "everyone calls it soccer here" and "no-one calls it football here" are totally false.

-- Chuq (talk) 07:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(By the way, I presume that the anonymous IP who posted on my talk page posing as you was actually you?) -- Chuq (talk) 07:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Western New Guinea

Can you help me? Is the Western New Guinea campaign the same as the Papua campaign? Regards --Newm30 (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, will have to ask further questions from US experts on what they are referring to. Regards --Newm30 (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Étaples Mutiny

Hi Grant, From WP:MOSDATE

If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are 
reasons for changing it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic. 

Because this article is about British Empire forces, it should use the "International" format? I'm not going to reverrt again, can we talk about this? Pleaase reply here, I'll be watching this apge. Happy editing TINYMARK 19:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

TINYMARK 21:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pacific War

A discussion started about the use of "viewed" or "portrayed" in this article [8]. We probably need to find a source to back up which language should be used. Cla68 (talk) 02:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Cesare2a.jpg

Hi Grant65!
We thank you for uploading Image:Cesare2a.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Leander class template

Hi, can you please have a look at my objections to your initial edit. Some are against conventions and really need discussing. Others are more questionable but I'd like you to consider what I've said there. Thanks. Benea (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] P-40

1. I never disputed the statement of German pilots overclaiming. 2. Why would I want to find a reference relevant to P-40 pilots in North Africa? Did the Germans fly P-40s? No! Did I ever write something about DAF-pilots overclaiming into the article? Again, no! All I did was telling the readers the well documented fact that overclaiming was by no means a German specialty. An impression the reader can get if the "200%" is not put in the right context.Markus Becker02 (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

One of the means to "flesh out" or elaborate a contentious point is to provide a qualifying statement. In publishing this is often a "pull-quote" or even an "insert box" which provides background, context or illustration of a point. Since the issue here may require this type of development, consider for the reader/editor, a note within a reference citation or an "invisible" note, the former being more accessible to the public. FWiW, providing attribution will be crucial in order to establish the facts. Bzuk (talk) 11:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-08 Curtiss P-40

Grant, an informal mediation has been opened at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-08 Curtiss P-40 with your name submitted as one of the participants to the dispute. I am the mediator. The process should be relatively painless and hopefully solved quickly. Do you want to join us? Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Was there a No. 19 Squadron RAAF?

Hi Grant, Do you know if the No. 19 Squadron formed by the Dutch in Australia in 1945 was a fourth NEI/RAAF Squadron? The AWM mentions it in the same context as No. 18, 119 and 120 Squadrons at: [9] and [10] (a self-published and somewhat unreliable source) states that it was formed "with RAAF support" and the book 'The Fourth Ally' (which is about the Dutch in Australia) also states that the RAAF supported the squadron. The Squadron was formed from the two Dutch transport units in Australia, and I'm unclear if they were purely Dutch, Dutch/US or Dutch/Australian units. Do you anything about these units? Thanks Nick Dowling (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IPL Sponsorship

Hi Grant, I have added a proposal to Talk:Indian Premier League#Sponsorship for how to resolve the question of the listing/non-listing of sponsorship details for the IPL. Considering that you are the only non-anonymous editor to have shown a significant interest in this topic, I thought you might like to take a look and offer some feedback. I will also post a notice at WT:CRIC about this issue. Juwe (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Civilian casualties on Pacific Islands

Have you ever seen data on Civilian casualties on Pacific Islands?--Woogie10w (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I picked this up at the local library this afternoon and had some Afghan kababs aftertwords:

Author is Poyer, Lin; Falgout, Suzanne; Carucci, Laurence Marshall

Title is The Typhoon of War: Micronesian Experiences of the Pacific War ISBN 0824821688

Publisher: Univ of Hawaii Pr, 2001--Woogie10w (talk) 00:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Russell Brown Desert Warriors

Very interesting book. Thanks for pointing this out. It is very complementary to the other books I have read. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, yes I ordered it from Australia and compared it with the JG 27 chronicles.

• Prien, Jochen & Rodeike, Peter & Stemmer, Gerhard. Messerschmidt Bf 109 im Einsatz bei Stab und I./Jagdgeschwader 27 1939 - 1945 (in German). struve-druck, Eutin. ISBN 3-923457-46-4

It's a series (roughly 1500 pages) in which in great detail, the fate of every aircraft, pilot is stated. The level of detail includes blown tires on takeoff, undercarriage failures, engine problems, maintenance issues, degree of combat damage, etc. Brown states in his book on page 162 that German records only report losses when the pilot was killed in action or killed in flying accident. This is clearly not true. Regarding the 57th Fighter Group, go to the page 152 on August 14th 1942, you will find the information regarding this bomber escort mission.

I quote directly "260 Squadron was actively engaged for the next ten days, and on 14 August, twelve of their aircraft, with another six from the 57th US Fighter Group, escorted Bostons to bomb Fulka station"

But I also read in his Book that on some occasions US pilots were integrated into DAF squadrons. Back to 15 September, now that I have read both sides of the story I tend to think that the level of confusion was immense and that in the heat of battle both sides made human errors in verifying claims. I think that those pilots on both sides made their claims in best faith. The only fault on behalf of the JG 27, as Brown states, is not to have counted the wrecks on the ground. But from what I read in Brown’s book this was not required by either side. And as Brown also states, finding a wreck some days later did not imply that the claim was confirmed. So the verification system fails, if a witness confirms what the claiming pilot is stating, and in the heat of battle this is too error prone. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, by no means do I want to create the impression that JG 27 is not guilty, so to speak. The fact, that the other side also has some questionable claims is irrelevant to what JG 27 claimed. It is not a counterbalancing issue (my opinion). However to me this proves that presenting instances of over-claiming is a very difficult thing. It easily gets the touch; better the reader gets the impression that the effected unit, person is guilty of deliberately having exaggerated their claims. I am personally still of the opinion that in most cases the claims have been filed in best believe that they are correct. This holds true for both sides, at least in Africa. From a German perspective I know of two individuals who have a questionable track record. These are Kurt Welter and Helmut Wick. In these instances their German comrades have cast doubt on their claims. I think we discussed this before. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IL2

You wrote: happened across Il2 Sturmovik 1946, which includes the first three games, going half-price and snapped it up. I have been too busy to install, let alone play it so far. I also need a joystick but am reluctant to pay the big bucks for a Cougar, Saitek or CH. What do you have and what would you suggest? Do you use pedals etc too? Cheers, Grant talk 15:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I use something called a "thrustmaster" i found on Amazon, it works fairly well, I think it was like $35, I can't afford rudder pedals. All twist type joysticks eventually wear out to where they start pulling to the right which causes you to have to increasingly adjust rudder trim etc. Mine lasted about six months before it started doing this, but it still isnt' nearly as bad as my logitech one was.

I think you can get the current version of Il2 1946 for about $20 on Amazon, you want to get the latest version because several errors with the physics were corrected and many flight models added over the years. Online play is done on player controlled servers through sites like Hyperlobby. Usually quasi realistic arenas based on different historical eras.

As a Sim Il2 is still state of the art, I would say the realism is still impressive, both on flying characteristics and engine management as well as damage physics and ballistics, though probably once it is replaced by something better it will seem very quaint and archaic.

Playing online is very hard, but the P-40 has a relatively good reputation in the mid-war settings, contrary to what some folks expect. It's often the most popular or second most popular fighter on North Africa / Med, Russian front, or Pacific theatre maps set in 1941-1943

[edit] Three Came Home

Hi Grant, how's things? Yep, I know what you mean about the Aussie accents in the film! They weren't machine-gunned - that's a bit of Hollywood licence - but were sent off to Sandakan a few days later, so the grim end result was the same. The film also separates Agnes and her husband into completely different camps to up the drama quotient, when in real life they were just down the road from each other and saw (but couldn't necessarily speak to) each other regularly. I chuckle at the scene with the three kids going to Suga's house - all ah-gee-whizz-American-as-apple-pie when the real three were all British. But then again, Hollywood and historical veracity rarely go hand in hand (U-571, anyone?). Parts were filmed in Sandakan, and Agnes Keith makes a brief cameo appearance, so it's worth the three quid-odd I stumped up at Amazon for it.

My research into the camp is cracking on and I've met (or chatted to) quite a few of the ex-internees (including your Mr Quartermaine, so thanks for that lead). I've hooked up with Dr Bernice Archer here, and Dr Christina Twomey of Monash University is joining us. All I need to do now is get some funding so that I can concentrate on it full-time, rather than dribbling along in evenings and weekends and spare moments when I should be working. By the way - have you read The Duke: A Hero's Hero at Sandakan. Captain Lionel Matthews GC, MC? It's by David Matthews, Capt Matthews' son, just published. Not an easy read but what an incredibly brave man. Cheers, Bec Jasper33 (talk) 08:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] JWC

Hi, I think you should check at JWC. User 60.42.252.205 has done a major revision. [[11]] I put back many deleted stuff but maybe it need a complete reversion...--Flying tiger (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pacific War

Hi Grant. If you have some time, please take a look at Allied submarine usage in the Pacific War. Thanks. Bebestbe (talk) 03:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)