Contents

User talk:Brian Crawford

For information on how to use User talk pages, go to:

• Wikipedia:Tutorial (Talk pages).
• Wikipedia:Talk pages

Hey Brian, thanks for all the help cleaning up my mess of information on voyageurs and whatnot. Looks great! Jay user:upshot

I'm just curious but is Gander International Airport the same location as CFB Gander? If it is and you have the time could you edit the article to reflect that? Also a CFB Gander redirect would be a good idea. I thouhg I would ask as you seem to have a knowledge of Canadian Forces Bases. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, same place. I've placed redirects on the List of Royal Canadian Air Force stations and included CFB and RCAF categories for Gander International Airport. BrianC 23:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil 17:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the contributions to the Wolseley, Saskatchewan article...If this is who I think it is, I went to school with your son.

Thanks for cleaning up and adding info. although I know very little about some of the abandoned airfields, I find it sad that important pieces of recent history are fading into oblivion.

I even visited the Western Development museum in the hope of finding out more, very interesting displays but very little documented info.

One of these days I will put a picture or two about the alternate landing field (Buttress) which is 6 miles south of CFB Moose Jaw.

Again thank you! Letès keep history alive.

Might I suggest that, on your userpage, you place a statement distinguishing you from the rather controversial Brian G. Crawford?DS 18:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was just a joke, ok. I won't vandalize anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.202.1.189 (talk • contribs)

Hey Brian, I am a new user of Wikipedia. While I am new here I have worked with wiki's previously (making wiki book) and I know the regulations here. I noticed you deleted several photo links which I provided for some pages just because they are at the personal website. But I think some of them are the best photo pages related to those categories (For example my photo link for Tobermory & Elora Gorge) which I believe they can help the readers a lot. If I were you, I would not delete SIX links in different pages just because of my personal judgment. I might delete one or two links but for the rests I would wait to see others ideas. As you surely know, Wiki works based on the group thought and judgment. If you believe that these photo links are not the best or they are not proper/related enough, some people may believe they are absolutely appropriate. I will be thankful if you wait to see other users ideas and then track me to delete my added links. However I believe you should revert your changes for Tobermory, Toronto Zoo and Elora Gorge pages while I am not sure about Kingston, Ottawa and CN tower. Hope you consider my request.

Thanks,

Hanif (hbayat) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hbayat (talk • contribs)

Replied to your Talk page. -- BC 04:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Brian,

Thank you very much for your comprehensive & quick answer. While I agree with you in some of the mentioned points I disagree on the others. I think for some of the articles, more than one or two photos are required and having one or two photo gallery links can be really useful. For example for Kingston or Ottawa you need at least 10-15 photos to show their main attractions. I agree with you that it should not be several photo websites links at the article page but always the approx. best ones can be found. If you replaced my photos links with other photo links (better ones) or if you remove a link because there is a better/more useful link there, it would be totally fine with me but when there is no other photo link there why we should not put a useful photo link. I am not trying to convince you but I just want to clarify my view point. Anyway thanks again for your consideration. I should be mention in end that I am kind of amazed by the number of contribution you have had just in a few months and how active you are in the Wikipedia.

Best Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hbayat (talk • contribs)

Replied to your Talk page. -- BC 18:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the tagging of these lists as not having sufficient information the wings came from the SAC article and I can't see how the list does not have enough information in the title. POlease stopR. E. Mixer 18:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, wait a minute, I'm just trying to help your articles. The tags don't say your articles lacked sufficient information in the title; the tags mean the articles lack information that would give them context. Articles, including lists, should have a lead-in, or explanation about what the article/list is about (see WP:LIST#Lead sectionorWP:LS) and how it fits in with the "big picture". The lead-ins give the articles context. The titles do have somewhat of an explanation but for someone who has no idea what SAC is or what a wing is, or what the wings do, the article may be meaningless no matter how much information is in the article. Your articles should be able to stand alone to a degree, but with links that people could take that would give them more information if they were interested. There is a fairly good one-sentence lead-in in the article List of USAF reconnaissance wings assigned to Strategic Air Command, which is often all that is needed. You may wish to link somewhere to Wing (air force unit). Maybe there should be a separate article on Wings associated with the USAF (not a list, but an explanation about how wings came about and what they do) that could be linked to, if one doesn't exist already (I don't think one does). BTW, since I have an interest in military history, I think that your articles are interesting and have lots of good info. All the best. BC 19:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has been some confusion over the rank of Andrew CHarles Mynarski on the night of 12/13 June 1944. According to the curator and records of the Andrew Mynarski Memorial Hall at 1 Canadian Air Division, Andrew Charles Mynarski was a Warrant Officer 2nd class at the time of the action on 12 June 1944. He was promoted postumously in September 1944 to the rank of Pilot Officer. I will provide some further references when I have time but Larry Milberry in his landmark works on 6 Bomber Group refers to some of the debate surrounding his Victoria Award nomination (mainly regarding the fact that the award was based on a sole witness to the action) and historian Hugh Halliday in his research even notes that there was concern over a non-comissioned rank receiving the VC. Bzuk 22:41 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Thanks Bill for the interesting information; I wasn't aware of the ongoing historical debate. I am really curious about this. Even if we changed it back to your original wording on ranks (that he was W/O), the external web pages the article links to have conflicting information. Since there is this debate, I wonder if we should just not mention any ranks for anyone in the article for now. Dumore and Carter in their book Reap the Whirlwind about No. 6 Group mentions no ranks perhaps for this very reason. I should check with my uncle who was a bomb aimer with 419 squadron. He may have some first-hand information. By the way, since you have Larry Milberry's book about 6 Group, could you check my article I wrote about No. 6 Group? There may be more information to add, or even, heaven forbid, corrections needed. -- BC 22:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt reply. There really is no controversy over the ranks, it is merely an error that has been propagated by authors quoting the Victoria Cross citation which clearly identifies Mynarski as a Pilot Officer. I am an author myself and have a book on Mynarski on the way so I know that his rank was postumously bestowed but that would constitute "original research" and that is why I did not refer to my own knowledge. If you read my edit, I have deleted the first mention of his rank and only referred to him as a Pilot Officer after his postumous promotion. It is true that all "non-coms" were elevated to officer ranks but it was not as sweeping or immediate as the original website infers. Some Sergeant Pilots were loath to give up the friendships and comraderie of the non-commissioned ranks for that of the officer class. In Douglas Harvey's (Laughter-Silvered Wings) accounts of his time in Bomber Command, he recounts that he refused the rank of Pilot Officer and felt coerced to eventually accept the promotion. Irregardless, no harm done, the correction is made and until I find a citation, I will leave at that. :} Bzuk 22:59 2 February 2007 (UTC). BTW, I will check the 6 Group when I have time.

I understand, thanks. You've cleared up a lot. BTW, I made a another change in the intro of the page which refers to him as a pilot officer. It's interesting that because of VC citation, suddenly every book or article about him gives him the rank of P/O. ... BC 23:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted this to the discussion, but wanted to make sure you saw it:

The article makes no claim that military brats are only American. The first sentence in the second paragraph reads, "Although the term "military brat" is used in other English-speaking countries, only the United States has studied its military brats as an identifiable demographic." The article has a US focus not to be exclusivist, but rather because that is where the research has been done. Notice that for the US section we didn't cite things from Militarybrats.com, military brat online communities, or other networking brat websites. Believe it or not, I did look at those websites while doing my research. Unfortunately, for the most part, they aren't authoritative. Most of them don't address Canadian Brats and the one's that do are "communities" or "Lists" or other social networking cites. Despite the allegations here, I tried to use only credible published sources and documented the hell out of the article to avoid these allegations.Balloonman 18:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Actually, soon after I posted I read the article again and realized this. Cheers.--BC 18:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brian, thanks for the help with my pages. The WP naming convention for RCAF squadron names "No. 4 - - Squadron RCAF is misleading. First, this is not how we refer to them in the Air Force, and second many of the squadrons were and are still in existence long after the RCAF was stood down in 1968. It also makes searching for them difficult. There are other squadrons in WP that do not follow this format. ie 441 Squadron and 408 Squadron. Who sets the standard for the format? Stemcat 16:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stemcat. The convention/standard was in place long before I started editing. Having lived an "air force life" for many of my years, I realize the naming convention does not necessarily reflect how we referred to the squadrons. There were/are lots of ways of referring to them and that is the problem. The rationale for Wikipedia is that all Canadian (and other countries) squadrons need to be titled the same way for consistency. Attaching the RCAF to it distinguishes the squadron from other countries' squadrons and, although many of the squadrons are still in existence, they started out as RCAF squadrons and the history descriptions would elaborate on this. I don't know of any squadron that did not start out as an RCAF squadron. I suppose the squadrons could have just as easily been named "No. 4?? Squadron CAF, but some squadrons were never part of the modern CAF (e.g. No. 432 Squadron RCAF) and would need to be named "....Squadron RCAF" anyway. Also, some squadrons were absorbed by other squadrons and were also never part of the modern CAF. The other squadrons that are not named this way will likely be renamed in the future. As far as searching, any squadron listed should show up in a search. Another way of searching is to go to List of Royal Canadian Air Force squadrons. You'll notice that all the squadrons are listed using the naming convention. Many squadrons (hopefully all in the future) have redirects as well. So, for instance, if you typed in "414 Squadron" or "No. 414 Squadron", it will jump immediately to "No. 414 Squadron RCAF". Redirects are easy to make. By the way, RAF squadrons are similarly named. Another reason for the naming convention is that once you have a new squadron page finished and titled "properly", it will automatically show up as a blue link on those pages that link to it (e.g. the list page). I hope this explains things. I look forward to editing with you. Cheers.--BC 17:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose of the table? None of the information shows in the article. Stemcat 17:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, looks like I have a lot to learn. Thanks for keeping me in line. I have reworked 414 Squadron again. I can't get the CF Squadron Template to work so I am leaving it out. I checked it on a computer at work run Windows XP and the info doesn't show up there either. I have also moved the 407 Squadron page to No. 407 Squadron RCAF.Stemcat 23:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits of my addition to the RCAF Station Marville were great. Like you I grew up on RCAF Stations (was at North Luffenham as a kid and was later stationed at Marville — after the Sabres were long gone). The "CF" was a trick of faulty memory, which I corrected a few minutes later, after a couple of searches. I liked the way you referred to it as the "Canadair Sabre" and omitted the designation. Sunray 01:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My review of the history squares exactly with yours. The confusion was due to a misprint by me. I had inadvertently switched 439 with 441 Squadron in the account of 441's travel across the Atlantic. I've now fixed that.

With respect to "ferrying," I agree that ferrying can refer to flying aircraft. It can also mean attaching them by their wing-tips [1]. However, I believe that it is quite common to speak of aircraft being "ferried" by aircraft carrier. Try the following Google search: "'ferrying aircraft' aircraft carrier." I always heard the move of 410 and 441 Squadrons described that way. Here's a source that refers to 441 Squadron's aircraft as being "ferried."[2].Sunray 07:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Directly from the Snowbirds website: 12. Q: Where did the Snowbirds get their name? A: "Name the Team" contest was held at the local base elementary school in June of 1971. The winner was a Grade 6 student by the name of Doug Farmer. Mr. Farmer was able to join the team on a media ride at the Abbotsford, BC Airshow in 2000. This is also confirmed on p. 23 of Mike Sroka's book and on the Canada Post Snowbirds stamp background literature. FWIW Bzuk 22:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hey Brian, nice "detective work". I can't tell you how many times I've come across a supposedly "correct" bit of information in some reference source and then see it repeated ad infinitum only to find out the first bit was wrong. I have just come across a source that claims that James Dean was being considered for the role of Charles Lindbergh in the 1957 film biography, "The Spirit of St. Louis (film)." At first glance, this would seem entirely reasonable as Dean was the same age as Lindbergh at the time of the 1927 cross-Atlantic flight. He would have been making his first Hollywood features in 1955 but died tragically in September that year. Something about the story just didn't ring true as the film was based on Lindbergh's 1953 book of the same name and the initial casting decision was being made in 1954, a time when James Dean was still in New York. On further reading, I found that his name doesn't come up anywhere in other reference sources in relation to the film except on an IMDb site and the liner notes of the DVD release. I am still of the opinion that this is an urban myth, but as you can see, these little "bits" intrique me.

By the way, I'm on my way to Calgary (for an aviation safety conference) by car next week, coming up from Nanton and passing right by lovely Okotoks, Alberta, the heartland of aviation knowledge in that part of the world, or so I've been told? Want to join me for a coffee? Bzuk 21:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You seem to have a point about Royal Canadian Air Force and the Royal Air Force badges and that can be fixed once more. My question then would be, those who were members of the RCAF and RAF as pilots during World War II, did they earn some type of "wings"? Tony the Marine 03:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tony. The RAF and RCAF (and other Commonwealth Air Forces) were given cloth uniform patches ("wings") after they qualified to be pilots or whatever. They were part of the uniform like rank patches and were never removed. You can see a typical WWII RAF/RCAF pilot's wings patch in the picture here: George Beurling. Pilots had a patch with two wings, while other positions such as bomb aimer, air gunner or navigator had similar patches with one wing, and usually a letter or letters (e.g. AG for air gunner) in the center signifying his position. Canada's and Britain's air forces still work that way. The RCAF and RAF badges that you placed in your article are not badges that are sewn onto a uniform and are not associated with any rank, position, honor, or merit award; they are essentially fancy logos that are symbols of the two air forces much like the seal of the USAF. The term "badge" for the air force "logos" is a misnomer; they should be referred to as emblems or insignias. Cheers.--BC 06:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, it all now makes sense. Tony the Marine 06:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know if there are any good WW II RCAF and RAF pilot "patches" images in the net, which can be used? Tony the Marine 02:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I would visit http://jfchalifoux.com/aircrew_wings.htm for a selection of RCAF patches. There are all kinds of them, and you'll have to know what his position was and when etc. For more info, you could email the webmaster at jfchalifoux@shaw.ca with as many details as possible. I'm sure he'll be able to help you out. He'll know much more than I about RCAF patches. If you can find a photo of the serviceman with the patches, that would make your job a lot easier. Obviously you want to find the right patch so that the article is as accurate as possible. I couldn't find anything about RAF patches but a good thorough Google search may come up with something. You may also want to look at eBay where a lot of patches are being sold. Sorry I couldn't be of much more help. Regards. --BC 04:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there is no other roundels uploaded into Commons and I'm unable to make another variant of the userboxes. I can use only this roundel for variants of Commonwealth AF. BTW - I've corrected low visibility variant with This user edits articles related to Canadian Forces Air Command sentence. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 17:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please, _let_ them link to Jack Chick. It only makes us look good -- anyone who believes what he says isn't going to be convinced by facts anyway. :-)--SarekOfVulcan 22:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering why you keep deleting my edits about the Henry Report, the report examining systemic racism at Queens that has garnered a great deal of local and national attention. Even internal Queen's publications have been thoroughly covering the issue.

Wiki is a public encyclopedia intended to accurately review all aspects of a topic - not just the topics that are "nice". It is NOT intended as a fan club or promo ad. I think you should justify your deletion from the perspective of Wiki's mandate or I will keep editing your deletions of my additions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bayboy1 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only reverted it once. If you checked the history, you will find your edit was last reverted by user:Gobbos, not me. The reason why I reverted it is because the material you added was out of place, interfered with article cohesiveness, did not properly cite sources, and was not even correct. Henry does not criticize, she only compiled, summarized and assessed the data gathered by a survey (not even hers) which has questionable significance due to a very limited sample/focus group size. In essence, the survey participants and focus group participants were the ones who were critical based on their responses. Dr. Henry was merely the interpreter of the data and responses. The Henry report may have gotten media attention, but that does not justify it being included in this article. A better place would be in a separate article, but I suspect such an article would be disallowed since it would not adhere to notability guidelines. BC 19:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not noticing that it was deleted by someone else as well. I will take your suggestions about referencing and cohesiveness into consideration in my next edit. I do, however, think my information regarding Dr. Henry being critical is more than accurate if you read the report in its entirety. And, while you might personally question the method of the report, the Vice Principal of Queen's and other senior administrators have acknowledged its validity in many public documents. Hopefully, the Vice-Principal Academic of one of Canada's leading research institutions is capable of judging research validity. Also, regarding "notability", I think this report is more than "worthy of note" - it is certainly as worthy of note as the history of Boo Hoo the Bear. The issues concerning what Henry called the "culture of whiteness" at Queens have received persistent attention for many years: in Kingston municipal politics, in the academic press, in the Queen's press, in the national media, and in public debate and discussion. I believe this will easily meet Wiki's notability guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bayboy1 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the report and it certainly has merit even if there was limited participation. Obviously Queen's and other institutions have work to do. I'm not saying that the report isn't notable in the context of university culture; it most certainly is. I'm just saying that as far as WP is concerned, the issue may not be notable. Perhaps the information will stand scrutiny if there is some rewording and citing. You would also have to make sure that the context is clear and make sure that it cohesively fits with the article. Cheers. BC 22:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so that you know, program and programme are bothcorrect, one is american, the other british. <DREAMAFTER>^<TALK> 20:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yup, I know that. I usually try to use the (simplest) spelling that uses the least number of letters. Also, here in Canada (where the RCAC are located), "program" is the more common spelling. Cheers!BC (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to check your preferences and look at the default size for thumbnails. I've taken off hard image sizes and using the default 'thumb' size, to whatever the user has set in their preferences.

Thank you for your comment as well. It is appreciated :)

Bwmoll3 (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to revert my changes – the merge thing is an option to try before deletion to see whether it is controversial or not. Normally if reverted, I would nominate for deletion in its current state but, if you say, you wish to improve it, then I will give you time to do so. Cheers, CP 21:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brian Crawford, just wanted to say thank you for your comment on the (naming of the) song See Line Woman by Nina Simone. I was not aware of the history of the song other than the Simone version, in which it is pronounced+interpreted as told on the Broadway-Blues-Ballads page. If you have the time than please share your knowledge of the songs+titles origins on that page, or perhaps it's interesting enough to create a seperate song-page? Greetings, Marcel flaubert (talk) 11:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]