User talk:Gaius Cornelius

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

For your hard work

		The WikiChevrons
		For your hard work on British anti-invasion preparations of World War II. Skinny87 (talk) 10:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, you deserve this barnstar just for all the hard work you put into British anti-invasion preparations of World War II, which has inspired me to start working on some of the improvised weapons that would have been used if the country had been invaded. I've just finished getting the Blacker Bombard to B-Class, and brought Sticky bomb to the same class, as well as the PIAT to GA-Class, although that would have been to late for the invasion I'd imagine. So thanks for that! Skinny87 (talk) 10:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Blacker Bombard and Sticky bomb look good - will you shoot for Good Article for them too? I will read the articles more closely at a later time. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 07:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for that, and the advice with the Bombard. I'm thinking about moving onto the Thornycroft Bison after the Northover, and perhaps an article on the improvised vehicles used by the Home Guard. I'm trying (unsuccessfully) to find a copy of David Fletcher's The Great Tank Scandal which I know has a section on them, but do you know of any other books or articles that might be of help in that area? Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 21:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. I wish you well with the other aticles and I will help if I can. The Great Tank Scandal is available at a price, but I don't have a copy. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 07:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I've replied at the article's talkpage. When I have time, I'll add in about Macrae's claim to making the sticky bomb, although I can't afford to purchase his book, and there are few libraries that have it available. Skinny87 (talk) 11:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

(od)I was hoping I might bend your lughole for a moment with a question? I'm looking at Thornycroft Bison and Standard Beaverette and the mentions in British anti-invasion preparations of World War II about Home Guard vehicles. Now, there doesn't seem to be much on the 'net or in my books on the Bison, and although there's some more mentions about the Beaverette it isn't a great deal. And as for the other vehicles they made - well, given that each type was different, I doubt there'd be enough info for an article. I was therefore thinking of writing Vehicles of the Home Guard (United Kingdom) or somesuch, with the possibility of merging the Bison into it and having info on the Beaverette but still leaving the latter as a seperate article. What do you think - do you know if there would be sufficient sources for it to work? Skinny87 (talk) 09:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Skinny: I wish you well, but I think you will find this difficult. I have looked and found very little on the Bison and Beaverette. There were other vehicles too: the Armadillo, which was protected by gravel between boards, the Scorpion, which seems to be similar but protected by Plastic armour and the cockatrice, an early flamethrower. There may have been more besides. These official and semi-official improvisatoins were not necessarily intended exclusively for the Home Guard. Rather than trying to rewrite information about them, a Vehicles of the Home Guard (United Kingdom) article might describe the many private attempts to construct armoured cars (and even armoured trains) for use by individual HG units. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC).

Blacker Bombard

Could I get you to look over the talkpage when you have a moment? I've answered your queries and would like some advice/guidance on the matter. Skinny87 (talk) 19:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I have done so. You really need those books I have mentioned, it should be possible to get them via a lending library or can be purchased via Abe books or similar. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 07:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank-you. Unfortunately, both ideas cost money that I can't afford, particularly the latter option which would set me back at least £30. I'll simply have to put the article on hold until such time as I can get a hold of the book. Skinny87 (talk) 08:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Skinny87: I know you are interested in unusual WWII weapons. The other day I came across the Lagonda flamethrower article for the first time - although it must have been on Wikipedia for some time. If you have not seen it before, you may find it interesting. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 08:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, very interesting - no, never heard of it before. Hmmm, I'll need to see if I can get ahold of Secret War by Pawle! Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 08:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't get tripped up by temperature conversions

You made a common mistake in the Teignmouth article. When talking about temperature difference the normal °C to °F conversion does not apply. A 10 °C temperature is 50 °F, but a 10 °C temperature difference equates to a difference of 18 °F. This is because you don't add 32 when doing differences. Think of it like this - 20 °C (68 °F) is 5 °C (9 °F) warmer than 15 °C (59 °F). Did I explain that OK? Anyway, I corrected your mistake in the article. --Simple Bob (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted and thanks for the fix. I will be more careful! Gaius Cornelius (talk) 08:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Even more careful, please. It happened again here. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Defaultsort for taxa

Hi there. I noticed a few of your edits that added a capitalized defaultsort using AWB. I haven't used AWB in a while - is this a standard feature now or is this a special regex or code you use? I note that adding such capitalized defaultsorts isn't really supported by guidelines or policy. In fact, I think it was removed from WP:CAT as it had been disputed. I'm of the opinion that they're unnecessary on species-titled articles as only other species in those articles will get sorted next to each other in categories. And currently the system of some articles with capitalized defaultsorts and some without has made for a lot of messy categories. I approached User:Rich Farmbrough with this, but only got one response and no further discussion. Do you have any strong opinions on this matter? It's unfortunate what a mess things are right now. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 21:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Rkitko: it is a built-in AWB thing. If it is disputed, then it should be removed and the place to bring this up is Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser or possibly Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 10:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

More on AWB

Thanks to AWB for picking up some repeated words and a missing capitalisation in Scale (map). On the other hand the diff file seems to flag vast chunks which were deleted and replaced without any changes in the source code. Am I missing something? Peter Mercator (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The "difference" indication will show up for any change in a paragraph. It will pick up on differences that are invisible to the human eye and I can only speculate as to what these might be in this case. AWB will exchange certain characters for different, but identical looking, unicode characters; AWB will also remove certain non-printing characters. Maybe an article that uses Greek characters for maths equations may be particularly prone to aquiring such characters? Gaius Cornelius (talk) 12:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Conversions

Please don't replace accurate conversions (in Asian House Martin) with the awful conversion templates. The latter are a lazy short cut, and when a range is small can result in nonsense like "99–99 in". If you think my conversions are wrong, recalculate them, there is no reason to impose a less accurate and ugly template. I should point out that there was no criticism of the manual conversions in the recent GA Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed the comment higher up this page - these templates encourage carelessness because they remove the need to think about what is being done, or to check that the answers make sense Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I really don't understand why you find the convert template so objectionable. As far as I can see, all instances of the template in that edit produced well formatted text and perfectly accurate conversions with appropriate significant figures. I suppose it is a matter of personal taste, but I don't find "20.2 x 14.1 mm (0.79 x 0.55 in)" to be any less ugly that its convert template equivalent. I don't think there is anything lazy about using the convert template; in fact it takes a little trouble to learn how to use it properly. The advantages include avoiding awkward " " non-breaking spaces while automatically enforcing the MOS formatting rules; consequently, it is clearer to other editors and makes updates easier. I cannot see any example of a conversion such as "99–99 in" that you seem so concerned about.

Of course, you are welcome to revert my changes, as I see you have already done. You may want to check the assertion that: "The adult Asian House Martin is 12 cm (5.5 in) long" the correct conversion is 4.7 inches. Some of the other conversions are a little inaccurate, although the instances I checked the difference was too small to worry about.

Happy editing. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I see that following your revert of my edits, User:Simple Bob has been fixing incorrect conversions in the Asian House Martin article - some by using the convert template and others in plaintext. Can we persuade you that the convert template is not so very evil after all? Happy editing. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I accept that there were no mad conversions in this article, although I've had nonsensical ones in the past. I just wondered what the point of the exercise was, it seems an inefficient use of time when there are so many articles with no conversions that need fixing. Anyway, I won't revert again, Happy New Year Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

A file you requested

Hello! I saw you requested a file on Commons a short while ago. I sent the Flickr user a message and asked for them to relicense it, and they were quite prompt in their response and more than happy to oblige. I've uploaded it as File:1926 Fordson snowmobile.jpg. :-) Killiondude (talk) 05:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I have tried asking Flickr users in the past but to no avail, perhaps my approach was wrong, I did not even think to try on this occasion. I will add this image to Screw-propelled vehicle. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 09:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Cultivator No. 6

On January 28, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cultivator No. 6, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 06:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, congrats for getting that articlr up from a stub! I've been wanting to get that worked up for ages, but never could find the sources. Great article - do you think it can get any larger? Skinny87 (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. There are very few sources. Turner is the motherload and I managed to get a copy on an inter-library loan. If you do find any more material be sure to let me know! Gaius Cornelius (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

AWB on Norwegian American

Hi, your edit using AWB on Norwegian American broke the page, because you changed the code <ref>Erling Viksund “The Ægir People.” January, 2005 [http://www.norwayheritage.com/articles/templates/voyages.asp?articleid=95&zoneid=6]</ref> into <ref>Erling Viksund “The Ægir People.” January, 2005<ref>http://www.norwayheritage.com/articles/templates/voyages.asp?articleid=95&zoneid=6</ref></ref>. AWB doesn't do this in the current version, so you should check your Find and replace or update AWB. Thanks. Svick (talk) 10:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That certainly was not supposed to happen. Thanks for pointing this out and for reverting the error. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 14:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sciencelab.com removal

I can give you half a dozen references suggesting that this company commits systematic fraud, if you are interested. Out of respect for the wiki, I'm slaving over finding replacement entries. I just spoke to a local journalist who called up the TX attorney general's office, and although their lips are sealed, they could say that they have 12 pending fraud complaints with similar profiles. The BBB has over 80 unanswered complaints. The modus operandi seems consistent, they charge the client right away, and they either don't ship anything, ship items scavenged from old labs, or make a partial shipment and never refund the difference. I forget that trick to sign with date... sorry! [[[DrippingGoofball]]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrippingGoofball (talk • contribs) 17:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Misstress Barbara

Hello Gaius Cornelius, this is a message from an automated bot to inform you that the page you created, Misstress Barbara, has been marked for speedy deletion by User:Peridon. This has been done because the page seems to be about a person, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant (see CSD). If you think the tag was placed in error, please add "{{hangon}}" to the page text, and edit the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. If you have a question about this bot, please ask it at User talk:SDPatrolBot II. If you have a question for the user who tagged the article, see User talk:Peridon. Thanks, - SDPatrolBot II (talk) on behalf of Peridon (talk · contribs) 16:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I did not create this article. There must be an error in SDPatrolBott II. Perhaps it is significant that when I listed the article's history, an edit of mine just happened to be the last one to be displayed. However, the edit history continued on another page. Actual originator seems to have been User:Liberlogos. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Bots! I never left a message with anyone as the creator hasn't been around for about a year. Peridon (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Photo request

Are you willing to travel to Aldershot for a photo request?

The place is the Air Accidents Investigation Branch head office - Farnborough House, Berkshire Copse Road, Aldershot, Hampshire, GU11 2HH WhisperToMe (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I will be happy to investigate, though I am not sure exactly when. However, I suspect that this building is inside the perimeter of Royal Aircraft Establishment and off limits to the general public. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 10:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK the AAIB did not give special instructions for visiting its address. I'll check the website to see if there is any additional info about accessing the AAIB offices. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any special visiting instructions at the AAIB site. I know the site is in close proximity to Farnborough Airport and that Google maps has not done a street map of the building yet. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I have not forgotten your request, but I will be on a Wikibreak for at least a couple of weeks. I will check this out when I get back. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 12:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. I have been there and checked. The AAIB is behind a rather impresive security barrier and I could not get anywhere near it. Sorry for the delay, I have been rather busy. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 09:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thank you for checking anyway! Did you, at some point, notice any signs directing the way to the AAIB or indicating that the AAIB offices were behind a certain secured gate? If so, I could shift my photo request to signage that is available to the public. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I changed my request to "Main gate leading to the head office (Farnborough House, Farnborough, Hampshire) - The head office itself may be in a zone inaccessible to the public" WhisperToMe (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

AAIB roadsign

AAIB Entrance

Mission accomplished. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for photographing it! Now we have a photo we can use to illustrate the AAIB head office!

The British AAIB, the French BEA, and the German BFU now have photographs representing their head offices

WhisperToMe (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Akraj

Hey, sorry this guy (indef-blocked vanity spammer User:Akraj) is now pestering you on your talk page. It is par for the course with him, unfortunately; whenever I revert his latest vanity spam additions, he targets someone I've recently interacted with in this fashion. If you want more info on the whole mess I can certainly give you a list of links to older discussions. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, sorry for the inconvenience. I'm not comfortable with adding protection to your talk page, especially without checking with you first, but you may wish to consider adding it yourself. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 15:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Akraj

Hey, sorry this guy (indef-blocked vanity spammer User:Akraj) is now pestering you on your talk page. It is par for the course with him, unfortunately; whenever I revert his latest vanity spam additions, he targets someone I've recently interacted with in this fashion. If you want more info on the whole mess I can certainly give you a list of links to older discussions. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, sorry for the inconvenience. I'm not comfortable with adding protection to your talk page, especially without checking with you first, but you may wish to consider adding it yourself. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 15:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Ckatz: Thank you for so vigorously defending my Air well (condenser) article, but is it possible that your edits are based on a misunderstanding?

As far as I can tell from the article history, you first edited this article on 14 May 2010 when you removed a reference to an article by Anil K Rajvanshi in the journal ‘’Desalination’’ and replace it with a {{fact}} template with the edit comment “(vanity spam (User:Akraj))”. There then followed an unseemly series of reverts and counter edits. You have now protected the page.

While it seems likely that Anil K Rajvanshi and User:Akraj are one and the same, he is not known to me in any way. I am pretty sure that he did not put that reference in – I am almost certain that I found that reference for myself and added it to the article; therefore, this cannot be an example of vanity spam.

If there is something seriously amiss with the citation, I will be pleased to hear what the problem is – and to do something about it. But until then please let the reference stand. The behavior of User:Akraj or your perception of it is not relevant to the issue of the appropriateness of the reference.

Gaius Cornelius (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello... thanks for the reply. FYI, the banned user Akraj is not likely to be one and the same with Anil Rajvanshi, he is Rajvanshi by his own admission several years ago. That user has been using Wikipedia to add links to his own material - opinion pieces, his web site, and so on - for several years now. He has used numerous rotating IP accounts and single-purpose accounts (as verified through Checkuser requests) to evade his block. he has also adopted a pattern of targeting editors who challenge his efforts, often with an abusive pattern of behaviour. (He has insulted editors, repeatedly reverted them, made accusations of bias and immaturity, and a sock of his was even CU'ed to confirm that he was attempting to disrupt my RfA.) Many of the "citations" he adds are links to self-written opinion pieces and essays, as opposed to third-party reviews of his work. He also likes to use the socks to add fluffy text ("an interesting idea" etc.) featuring his own ideas. Over the past year or so, he's been harassing me in particular because I've kept his typical articles watchlisted. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

With respect to the citation in question, I researched the article history. As it turns out, you were in fact the one to add it here. However, I note that you have also edited the article dew. That article was repeatedly edited by known socks of Rajvanshi, in order to add the identical link to his own proposal. These IPs and socks were also responsible for repeatedly adding non-encyclopedic text promoting the proposal (such as "An interesting concept of large scale dew condensation near the sea shore was made by scientists in University of Florida in 1980s"). Is it possible that you brought the text and the citation from that article when you added it to "air well"? The article history shows that on the day you added text about the sea water idea, the self-promotional citation was in fact present in "dew" having been added by a known IP sock of Akraj a few weeks previously in this edit. Note also that the abstract in question (I've seen it used by Rajvanshi himself before) outlines a proposed concept, not an actual method, and even states that the idea is not cost-effective. Even if we factor out the Rajvanshi-Wikipedia spam problem, the concept itself may not even be notable enough to warrant inclusion. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. I will look into the matter more closely. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Ckatz mental makeup can be gleamed at [1], at [2] and [3]. She never gives up. Not only that she makes up all sort of stories and lies to justify her sorry behavior. Since yesterday she is using an IP address as a sockpuppet [4].

59.95.36.211 (talk) 13:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see the discussion started on Talk:Air well (condenser). Gaius Cornelius (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how, exactly, I'm supposed to have secured a Comcast IP up in Canada, let alone used the IP to edit dozens of articles I've never visited before. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Deviousness and compulsive harassment by Ckatz cannot be underestimated [5]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.5.152 (talk) 01:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that the indef-blocked spammer Akraj is choosing another banned user as his model. Even more interesting, Mr. Rajvanshi, is that you've selectively chosen to present HarryAlffa's draft ArbComm note, but completely ignored the fact that his claims were utterly rejected. You have also forgotten to mention HA's block history, with blocks for "disruptive editing", "persistent battlegrounding", "persistent reverting against consensus", "using ArbCom elections as personal agenda platform", and finally the indef ban for a "systematic pattern of disruption, personal attacks, incivility, not here to build an encyclopedia". On a related note, would you care to discuss your own block history, which involves "spamming links to external sites", "sockpuppetry", and finally "abusing multiple accounts: harrassment under other accounts"? --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Ckatz has a long history of first calling editors as spammers, vandals etc as she continuously harasses them. Then after sometime she uses this history to ban them and when that ban is challenged she indefinitely blocks them by misusing her admin powers. This indef-blocks if brought to the notice of Wikipedia community becomes a tool in her hand that since they are indef-blocked they are not even worthy of contempt! It reminds one of well established Gestapo techniques practiced by Nazis. One of the reason for this behavior is that she does not understand anything about the subject matter since she is neither a researcher or an academician. What she maybe is an editor at best. Arrogance with little knowledge is a very dangerous thing and in her case because of her vindictive behavior-lethal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.254.176.97 (talk) 08:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.254.24.21 (talk)

GC. You might like to see the comments of one user whose talk page has been vandalized repeatedly by Ckatz. [6]. 59.95.37.117 (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Ckatz: Stop deleting comments from me and from others on my talk page. As one administrator to another, I say that you should know better and if you will not stop you will be reported. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 20:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I've also emailed you with respect to this, but as far as I know, the only posts I've ever removed are the repeated attack posts directed against me by abusive sockpuppets of an indef-blocked user per Wikipedia's policies regarding the prohibition of block evasion. If any of your posts were removed, it most certainly was an unfortunate error. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, you don't have email. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Akraj: My talk page is not the appropriate place for this. I think I have heard quite enough about Ckatz for some time. Please take a deep breath, keep your fingers away from the paste function and just briefly tell me why you want to contribute to Wikipedia. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 20:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Your level headedness, tempered and very reasonable tone is very much appreciated. It is hoped that Ckatz learns some civility from this exchange. Cheers. 59.95.34.176 (talk) 11:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, but can you make a post without mentioning Ckatz but telling me why you want to edit Wikipedia, really I do want to know. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 06:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is one of the most visited site on the internet. For any subject the first site that pops up in any search engine is this. Hence it is a good starting point for any research. The body of knowledge in Wikipedia can be further strengthened by putting good quality information based on researches done by scholars. Having been in research business for the last 25 years I think I can contribute to this effort and hence the desire to edit the Wikipedia. I really appreciate your asking and prompting me. Cheers. 59.95.4.209 (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If you are truly interested in contributing, perhaps you could explain:

• Why is it that the only research you choose to present is your own?
• Why is it that you have frequently attempted to convince other editors of the value of your material without revealing that you are the author?
• Why is it that, when other editors (not just myself) have expressed concerns that your contributions are self-serving and promotional in nature, you have resorted to insults, reverts, and large-scale sockpuppetry in an attempt to restore your material?
• Why is it that, following your ban for disruptive behaviour, you have repeatedly sought to disrupt Wikipedia and its editors through the use of those same sockpuppets?

While I remain skeptical as to your true intentions, I would be interested in seeing honest answers to these questions. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Akraj: Thank you for your reply. I have taken a look at your edit history and it is clear that for one reason or another your editing took a very wrong path – continuing on that path is obviously unacceptable to Wikipedia. However, while I have encountered many difficult editors in the past something tells me that your case might be different. If you are sincere then the correct approach is is to go through the appeal procedure for blocked users. I have left a template on your user page which tells you what to do in the first instance; some discussion will likely follow. Clearly, you will have to persuade Wikipedia that the block is no longer necessary because the original reasons for the block have been addressed.

In addition to Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, you may find the following articles helpful:

• Wikipedia:Expert retention
• Wikipedia:Expert editors/New draft

If you feel the need for advice, please do ask. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

File:CalculatorOne.jpg listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:CalculatorOne.jpg. Since you had some involvement with the File:CalculatorOne.jpg redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

wp:fix

hi there! Speaking of corrections, could you 'come back' for a bit on the WP:FIX? I typically only do it once a month, so that would be great! Thank you! :) Sct72 (talk) 03:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I only work on that intermittently. Sorry to be inconsistent, but life has a way of interfering with Wikipedia work - for example, my home PC has been out of action recently. Also, I tend to do fixing work only when not active on a specific article. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 07:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

All good. Thank you! Sct72 (talk) 02:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

George Rudolf Hanbury Fielding

Hi Gaius Cornelius,

In the past you tweaked one of my articles... I think you bunched all reflinks to the same reference in 'References' so that there was only one version in the reflist, and a shortened version of the link in the text... is that as clear as mud? I am wondering if you could have a go at my new article George Rudolf Hanbury Fielding. The same ref is stacking up in multiple copies... I've had a go, but I can't for the life of me work out how it's fixed. I'd be really grateful if you can have a look. Best wishes, Acabashi (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I have been away. Another editor seems to have sorted this out. If you need any futher help, please do ask. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 10:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Putnam County Courthouse (Ohio)

I've responded with a question to your comment at T:TDYK; could you please reply? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick feedback. Nyttend (talk) 03:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The National Archives

Pleae not, the proper name of the the institution is The National Archives, not National Archive. Also, you can form a reliable link direct to a particular catalogue reference by using http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/ExternalRequest.asp?RequestReference= and putting the reference on the end (easier for Wikiepdia purposes to have no space between the letter code and the series reference, but either should actually work). David Underdown (talk) 10:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. Thanks Gaius Cornelius (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Operation Banquet

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Operation Lucid

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Norcon pillbox

Hi, I did spot your new article, V good. But am a bit confused by your message " the hook which derives from the official handbook of the Pillbox Study Group" what is the hook? Regards --palmiped |  Talk  15:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• OK understand.. Good to go with good references in article --palmiped |  Talk  18:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Antitank2.jpg

Uploaded image to commons & replaced image in article. Regards --palmiped |  Talk  12:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Gaius Cornelius (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if the Salthouse scaffolding is Z1 anti tank, I think it may be Z0 anti boat as its location is within the waters of the Salt marsh --palmiped |  Talk  16:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It is certainly Admiralty Scaffolding of some type. My understanding is that Z1 was by far the most common design in both the anti-tank and anti-boat role. I have never seen a diagram or picture of any other type - just brief mentions. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 07:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Norcon pillbox

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Air well

Hi there. Karanacs closed the FAC as unsuccessful, presumably because she felt that the issues would be best dealt with outside of FAC due to their severity. However, if you'd like my continued input on the matter, what we can do is simply copy the relevant contents of the FAC onto the article's talk page or a peer review page and then work from there. Sound good? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. Let's do it. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Ruck machine gun post

Hi, I see ref to use of Stanton sections has been removed in British hardened field defences of World War II and not included in the new article, do you think then that Stanton sections were not used to construct the Ruck? Regards --palmiped |  Talk  18:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for your interest. As you can see I have been researching the Ruck pillbox in as much detail as I can - though that is not particularly easy. However, the file at the National Archives is quite clear that Ruck designed for Hydroprest Concrete prefabricated sections - these are similar to Stanton sections but have a slightly different shape to the arch and are much narrower. In Ruck's drawings the sections are clearly of the narrower sort. I have visited the only complete example at Lawyer's Creek and it is exactly like Ruck's drawings. I have also seen some remains elsewhere, and again they the sections were too narrow to be Stanton parts.

I cannot see why something very similar could not have been made from Stanton parts and perhaps they were, but I don't know of any direct evidence for them. I suspect that the confusion has arrisen from the similarity between the parts or, possibly, the Stanton parts gave their name to all similar prefabricated parts in the same way that the word "Hoover" is today used for any vacuum cleaner.

Of course all this leaves the mysterious structure at Sandiacre. It is listed in the Defence of Britain database as an example of a Ruck. I visited it (a long time ago) and now I am sure that it cannot have been a Ruck pillbox. It might be WWII, but I doubt it was any kind of pillbox. The windows in that structure are cut through the concrete sections - those in the endmost prefabricated sections have been blocked up so perhaps the windows were cast in. In a Ruck, the embrasures are placed in gaps between the prefabricated parts. Also, there are no tell-tale witness marks of where concrete slabs were mortared to the outside of the pillbox to thicken the protection.

So, after all this, yes I am really sure that Stanton sections were not in fact used to make Ruck pillboxes. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Must say I was never 100% convinced about the Sandiacre structure, always thought the windows were too large, maybe it was converted after the war to some sort of farm building. Keep up the good work. --palmiped |  Talk  22:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Palmiped: will you mind if I move this discussion to Talk:Ruck machine gun post? Gaius Cornelius (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Admiralty scaffolding

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Flame fougasse

Hello! Your submission of Flame fougasse at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Re:Spelling

Hello there! :) I read your message on my talk page, the one question I do have is I understand that the Wikipedia headquarters are in United States, so shouldn't all articles on the Wikipedia server be in United States spelling? I am Canadian myself, and it is habit for me to spell colourful instead of colorful. Is there a policy about spelling that I didn't read? Thanks :) --Addihockey10 23:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks for letting me know, and if you see me do something wrong or not to Wikipedia Guidelines - just call me on it. I assure you I won't spaz out and that by letting me know you're helping me avoid making the same mistakes in the future. Happy editing! Hope to see you around! --Addihockey10 23

29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Ruck machine gun post

The DYK project (nominate) 00:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination for Canadian pipe mine

Hello, your nomination of Canadian pipe mine at DYK was reviewed and comments provided. --NortyNort (Holla) 11:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

AWB on Jo Estill

Hi Gaius Cornelius, thanks for your help maintaining the article. However, your edit using AWB on Jo Estill unfortunately introduced an error. You changed the 'A' in the author name 'Sawada A' to an 'An', probably because the following word begins with a vowel. You also changed the dates in the references from the established ISO 8601 date format for the article to 'day before month' format. Following WP:DATESNO and the examples in the citation templates there's no justification for this change as the date style of the article's references was already established and consistent. If anything you could argue the dates should be in 'month before day' as Estill is American but I don't believe there is sufficient a national tie to the topic. So... I'm going to undo your edit and then reapply just the tidy on the extra white-space you identified in two of the paragraphs. Thank you again for your help! Knavesdied (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the "An" thing and of course you are free to revert as you see fit. However, let me explain myself. Some time ago, templates used to expand YYYY-MM-DD dates into full dates acording to user preferences and this made a nonsense of "established style". As it is, Wikipedia prefers full dates and YYYY-MM-DD should be reserved for use "in long lists and tables". When I change dates, I try to make them consistent with the date style already established - in this case I took the first date in the article as my guide and that is in day-month-year form. The same date appears in the info box in the month-day-year form - ah well. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. Great spot on the Infobox birth date. Using Template:Birth date and age and had missed adding the day-first format. Have fixed that now. With the ISO 8601 date format in the references, it's used essentially for brevity as it would be in any other long list or table. My interpretation of WP:DATESNO format consistency guidelines is that dates in article body text should all have the same format, and dates in article references should all have the same format, but both article body text date format and articles references date format do not necessarily have to be the same. Anyway, thanks again for the fix on the whitespace and the spot on the inconsistent date in the Infobox! Knavesdied (talk) 00:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Flame fougasse

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Tacitus

Hi. Thanks for cleaning up Tacitus. Please be more careful, though, about changing dates without ensuring that the date there is wrong. Tacitus died in 68, not 1968. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 16:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops! Very sorry. Thanks for sorting my mess out. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Canadian pipe mine

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Tett turret

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Gaius Cornelius, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Gaius Cornelius/Petroleum Warfare Deparment. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

operations Saracen and Banquet

Verbatim:-

The Advanced Training Squadrons of all day fighter Operational Training units would have 500 added to their numbers to become reserve Squadrons if plans under the code name 'Operation Saracen', made in Spring 1942 to counter a German invasion, were put into operation. Plans were revised under the code name 'Banquet' in order to accomodate additional resources. Records indicate the titles were used by several 'Operational Training Units' and '3 Tactical Excercise Unit' until at leaST may 1944for standing patrols, convoy escort duties, conversion training and night flying.

followed by lists of squadron numbers against OTU numbers and advanced bases allocated12:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)Petebutt (talk)

Thanks. Discussion moved to Talk:Operation Saracen and Operation Banquet - a more appropriate place. Please continue there. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Armadillo armoured fighting vehicle

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Judgement/Judgment

Hi, thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed the discussion about the usage of judgment in Simon Singh - while it's true that judgement is correct in British English, judgment is and always has been used in the British legal context. Of the links you used for citation here, one says "the spelling judgment is conventional in legal contexts" (AskOxford.com) and another refers to a "court judgment" ( LDOCEonline). In Wikipedia's Manual of Style the difference is explained, saying "In Australian and British Law, a Judge's decision in a case is always spelt Judgment. On the other hand, the forming of opinion or conclusion by an ordinary person is usually spelt judgement."

Indeed, the actual judgment referred to in the Simon Singh article starts with Lord Judge introducing the "judgment of the court" (BCA v Dr Singh). It seems clear that the legal spelling should be used when it is mentioned in the article. While the spelling difference is dealt with on Wikipedia here, I will make this clear on judgement itself. Happy editing. Daniel Craig David James (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems you are right! I had always thought it to be one of those US/British English differences. How confusing it is that the Oxford Dictionaries link has examples such as "pass judgement (of a law court or judge) give a decision concerning a defendant or legal matter"! Happy editing. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Accessdate

Thank-you for your tireless work in correcting the accessdate parameter in articles such as SNCF Class B 82500 and many others (I'm glad to see I'm not the only one to get this one mixed up. I know I can never remember the exact for of the parameter, and I must have forgotten to check it with the "Show Preview" button that time. Tim PF (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You are very welcome and thank you for the feedback. Given the complex history of these templates and the frequency with wich they are used, it is surprising that there are not more of these little faults. Happy editing. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Donald Banks

Thanks for the message on my talk page - I'm pleased you like my start on the Donald Banks article. I have now completed by first round of editing, so please feel free to start adding to it. I have very limited knowledge of the work of the Petroleum Warfare Department - I have his book "Flame Over Britain" but must admit that I have not read it yet! - so I have little to contribute in this area. My interest stemmed more from his connection with Guernsey and in particular as founder of the Guernsey Society of which I am a current member of the Council. I am currently compiling updates to add to the sections on his early life in Guernsey, his World War I service in the Essex Regiment, and his time as Postmaster General of the Post Office and Director of De La Rue. So I will await with interest any contributions you will make to his WWII service. You may already know, that the Imperial War Museum holds a collection of his papers. footie (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

About your edits to the "Enzo Martinelli" entry using AWB

Hello Gaius Cornelius, I am writing you since I would like to ask you... Ach, is really the correct form for the relative positions of inline references this :;,.<ref>Blah, blah, ...</ref> instead of this <ref>Blah, blah, ...</ref>:;,.? If this is true, I think I should change all the entries where I did substantial additions. :( :D. Daniele.tampieri (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Daniele, generally speaking we put citations after punctuation. I think you will find the Manual Of Style (MOS) information that you need at MOS:REFPUNC. If you prefer, simply peruse a few examples of featured articles for what is de facto acceptable practice. Do let me know if you have any further questions. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 08:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I see that I must definitely change my edits involving inline references. Gaius Cornelius, thank you very much: more and more frequently I see that it is necessary to know every part of the WP:MOS, obviously if one wants to be a steady-state quality Wikipedia contributor. Daniele.tampieri (talk) 11:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Daniele: You are welcome of course. All the little rules of WP:MOS can seem rather daunting; I am sure there is nobody who knows them all and in any case there are probably some inconsistencies in there. It does not help that the MOS is constantly changing – mostly in small ways. Remember, you can probably get as much out of looking at example featured articles as reading the MOS. Don’t worry too much about the rules, enjoy your editing and learn as you go along. If another editor does step in be assured that they are probably just trying to help. Happy editing Gaius Cornelius (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Your work on pillboxes

It seems you are by far the biggest contributor to British hardened field defences of World War II and I have to say that is some fine work. I admit I'm interested in the topic but to me this article is what Wikipedia should be - comprehensive without boring detail, well illustrated, mostly factual with a just a bit of historical commentary. I briefly looked at some of your other efforts and they look good also. I hope you will spend many more years on Wikipedia, your work is appreciated.

Leidseplein (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Your kind words are much appreciated; we all need a little encouragement every now and then! I hope that you too will continue to contribute and that you will enjoy your work at Wikipedia. I have made a point of confining my more detailed WWII studies to the invasion crisis period and I have a number of new articles on the back burner. If we can help one another in the future that will be all to the good. Do please let me know if I can be of assistance. Happy editing. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Livens Large Gallery Flame Projector

Many thanks for your kind assistance on Livens Large Gallery Flame Projector and for tidying up after my many little mistakes. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC))

You are very welcome. It is becoming a nice little article on a very interesting topic. I hope that the Did You Know will get it some more publicity. I only recently stumbled on your DYK, do you think you could come up with a more appealing hook? Perhaps mention the power, range, rare success etc of the weapon? Of course, what the article really needs is a picture but I don't think we can hold out much hope except that I am not at all clear on copyright the status of such old photographs. You may find this link useful. Happy editing. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

PWD article

Hey, I see you're onto the flame-thrower vehicles section of the PWD article. I don't know if you're interested, but when trying to get stuff together for the Universal Carrier artcle, I brought all the Osprey books on the Carrier, the Churchill and amphibious tanks; they have a lot of info on the Wasp and the Churchill Crocodile. Could I maybe give you a hand with that info by adding it into the article? I can always work in a sub-article if need be.Skinny87 (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi! The PWD article is in my "personal space" where I prefer to quietly gestate new articles. However, you are not just anybody and if you have good info on the Crocodile and Wasp then you are very welcome to chip in. One day - in the not too distant future I will move the article to the main space, but I am not sure when that will be; it is still a bit of a mess. I will list the article as a Did You Know candidate when I do move it.

There is already an article on the Crocodile, but none on the Wasp so you might care to add to or create those articles. If you feel there is enough information on the Wasp for a new article I will be happy to help with it. Happy editing. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 07:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know what you mean about personal space and sandbox articles. Perhaps if I put together a section on the Wasp and Crocodile (and anything else I can find flame-related for the vehicle section) in my own sandbox, and then you can pick and choose whatever you think fits. I want to get working on the Carrier article anyway, and this will be one section done. How does that sound?Skinny87 (talk) 07:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That sounds great! All the best with that. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 12:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Will do. As for your articles, the Fougasse one is a sure-thing for GA. You might get questioned on the use of primary sources, but given the obscure nature of the weapon I can't see that being a difficult question to answer. The other two are rather short; they could do with an infobox each and a little structuring to create a small lede and maybe a subsection or two, merge some sentence fragments, but otherwise wouldn't be too difficult to pass. I managed to get sticky bomb to GA despite a lack of info, for example. Skinny87 (talk) 07:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way, I have a boatload of research on the sticky bomb which could significantly add to that article. Would you like to co-operate on that article - perhaps we could get it to FA! Gaius Cornelius (talk) 07:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, that is quite tempting. I have to admit that my time on-wiki isn't a lot these days, as I seem to have lost the will to do big articles. But if you have the info, it might be a good idea to work it up. Maybe add it to a sandbox first to see how it all goes together? I'll try and finish the PWD stuff first. Skinny87 (talk) 07:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, looking at the PWD draft, you have the Churchill Crocodile Osprey book by Fletcher and Bryan. I didn't notice because they aren't in the reflist yet. Do you have their book on the Universal Carrier at hand as well? They're the only two that I have that bear on the Wasp/Valentine/Churchill Crocodile, so if you have the latter my help might be redundant lol. Skinny87 (talk) 10:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. I will get the sticky bomb material into a sandbox sometime. Not sure when though.

I may have the Churchill Crocodile book somewhere - I have a lot of books and I sometimes loose track, it is possible that it is just one that I have borrowed. However, I am pretty sure I dont have anything specific on the Universal Carrier/Wasp. Be assured that your input will be appreciated in any case. Gaius Cornelius (talk)

12:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Article section order

Okay, so in the section I've written so far, I've covered the Ronson and Hornet and begun the Wasp section. However, Fletcher's section goes Ronson > Oke/Valentine > Hornet/Wasp > Crocodile, which follows War Office policy, while the PWD subsection goes Wasp (including Ronson/Hornet) >Valentine > Crocodile. Should we restructure slightly to follow Fletcher, as it makes more sense chronologically? Or do you want everything about each type of vehicle, prototypes and all, in seperate individual sections? Skinny87 (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The section order you give makes sense to me. I had not previously given it much thought. I think the sequence should make sense from the point of view of the PWD narative and that might vary things a bit - do projects go in the order in which they were started or the order in which they were completed? We will just have to see how things turn out! Gaius Cornelius (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Werll, as the PWD were involved with the early Cocktrice vehicles, as well as with the Oke/Valentine, the order Fletcher uses would probably make sense for the PWD narrative as well. Especially since the Carrier work was delayed to work on the Oke, then switched back to favour the Carriers, then moved back to the Crocodile. I'm working over the weekend but should have Monday free to get some more done; I'll finish the Carrier and Valentine sections first, as the Crocodile section will be more extensive but also more self-contained as the development was quite lengthy and it saw a lot of service, and then we can decide before working on the Crocodile. By the way, how much do you want written on the use of the weapons on active service, given that they wouldn't be under PWD control? Skinny87 (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Deparment

I'm sure someone has mentioned it already, but don't forget to move it to Petroleum Warfare Department and not Petroleum Warfare Deparment. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 11:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks.

Precision about an image taken by you

Hello, I am going to translate the article British anti-invasion preparations of World War II, and I would like to know where have you taken this photo because it seems that there is several Narborough. Thanks in advance for your reply. Best regards, Skiff (talk) 03:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

If possible, please answer on my french discussion page. Skiff (talk) 03:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Skiff: it is near Narborough, Norfolk. If you follow my image to Wikimedia, there is a link to OS Map coordinates. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 07:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for not having checked the link to OS Map (I were not aware of what it was). I have changed the link in the article from the disambiguation page to Narborough, Norfolk. Thank you for your quick answer. Have a nice week end. Skiff (talk) 07:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for the fix. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 12:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Winterbourne, Gloucestershire

An article that you have been involved in editing, Winterbourne, Gloucestershire , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Skinsmoke (talk) 10:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Armstrong

Hello, Gaius Cornelius. You have new messages at Talk:Neil_Armstrong/GA2.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Chzz  ►  16:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Edward Terrell

Are you doing anything much with your draft at User:Gaius Cornelius/Edward Terrell? An article on the Disney bomb, which Terrell is credited with, is about to come to fruition. I see he also links into MD1 and Jeffries. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel I have quite enough just now for anything other than a stub article. I do have some books etc, but not enough time to do the man justice - though I will check to see if I have written anything off-line as I sometimes do. He had quite a long and varied career, not just his WWII work. If you wish to create an Edward Terrell article do please go ahead and I will be happy to chip in with what I have. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

If you move it to article space (since the basis is your work and you deserve credit), I'll give it a quick polish - and then hopefully others will come along and contribute. Sounds like an interesting chap. I read Macrae's book on MD1 and I suspect Terrell's Admiralty Brief is an equally interesting book.GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. It is done! I will hunt for any extra tidbits I might have around, but do not hope for much. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Flame fougasse

The article Flame fougasse you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Flame fougasse for things which need to be addressed. Pyrotec (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Gaius Cornelius. Thanks for your note on my talkpage. I have added some clarification to Talk:Flame fougasse/GA1. I'm not convinced that my comments over the use of Original sources has been adequately considered, particularly when MUN5 is cited as an in-line reference. Its 419 pieces in total (see [7]), and could not be requested in that format, individual files would have to be ordered; and the limit is (from memory) three requests at a time and a limit of 21 items per day. I'll consider then on an individual case basis, but this is clearly not a valid citation. Pyrotec (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Gaius Cornelius. Thanks for your note on my talkpage. I'll will be going to Kew sometime fairly soon, but not this month. If I can find anything in the Official Histories (of WW I), assuming I have time (I usually go on Thursday's as its a "long day"), I'll add it to the article. I like the article, but not the potential conflicts of OR. Pyrotec (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Pyrotec: Lucky you! A day at Kew is one of my favourite things but a rare treat (my wife doesn’t understand me). Do let me know what you find. I understand your points regarding the article; although such weapons are frequently mentioned in passing in descriptions of the period, details are usually wanting. I suspect that never having been used in the UK and not much elsewhere, writers felt they had better things to do than grub up such minutiae. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Northover Projector

Hello Gaius Cornelius,

I have just translated the english article in French and discovered this picture.

My problem is to read the legend. As you are the author of this picture, could you please help me (I hope that you have better eyes than me).

Reading the previous paragraph, I discovered that we seems to have the same interest. Thanks for the good job done on British anti-invasion preparations of World War II, and thank you for the job you have given to me (about 45 red links in the french articles (26 remaining) to create)! Have a nice evening (and summer). Regards, Skiff (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:GLAM/BM/Bronze Age

Please check this out. I hope you can take part. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sticky Bomb

Hey, good work on the article. But can you make aure everything is cited, as I'm seeing a lot of paragraphs/sentences ending uncited. And could the Development section be trimmed down somewhat? I don't think everything there is essential; at the very least, it needs a subsection. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. I realise a little more work is needed. Can you put in {{cn}} marks where you feel the need for a citation. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I added a couple, but I think you got everything else I was concerned about. It's looking in much better condition at the moment; I'll have a more in-depth look tomorrow night after work. Thanks for the hard work! Skinny87 (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Ditton, Kent

Hi

I noticed that you changed a direct quote from "1st" to "1" in the article. Please try and ensure that AWB edits are properly monitored before saving :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry. Thanks for fixing. Happy editing. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Restituare Wikipaedia, Imperator! Chaosdruid (talk) 23:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Section post

Hello Gaius Cornelius, First, thank you for your answer to my last request. Today, I am a little annoyed with this. I not sure I am well understanding "Section post" to translate it. Was does it means exactly? Does "Section" mean a military section (like a division) or a section like a section in a drawing (a cut). Same question for "post". Is it a pillar or a position where soldiers a waiting for the enemy? Unfortunately, the picture let me imagine that it could be a position for soldiers or a transversal section with pillar. To my opinion, the first idea is the good one but I would like to be sure. Thanks in advance for your help, Best reagrds. Skiff (talk) 05:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Skiff: I only know for certain that "section post" is the name given to such structures. I am pretty sure that the sense of the expression is a "position defended by a section of men" - that would be consistent with the size and evident purpose of such structures. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 08:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick answer. I have an additional question. My goal is to make the french tranlation of "British anti-invasion preparations of World War II" a featured article (in the next 3-4 months). But on the french side, no red link are allowed for a featured article, and there is still one (Campbell Stuart) in British anti-invasion preparations of World War II. Have you planned to make it blue? Thanks again for your help and please continue your good job. Skiff (talk) 09:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Skiff: There probably should be an article on Campbell Stuart and I daresay that one day there will be. However, I will not be writing one anytime soon. Good luck with your translation. Happy editing. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 12:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Random survey

Hi, This is a random survey regarding the first sentence on the Wikipedia policy page Verifiability.

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."

In your own words, what does this mean? Thank you. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 03:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Tidying up

Thank you!

• I want to alert you to the fact that Giovanni dell'Orto generally puts dates into his picture file names (as well as his name) and formats them in an odd way. If you inadvertently "tidy up" one of Giovanni's dates, as you did in the List of Greek temples, the picture disappears.

• Shortly after you worked on the List of Greek Temples the whole article went totally haywire. Having checked your edits and not finding anything that could possibly cause a total stuff up, it took me ages to work out what the problem was. Someone had changed the template that sorts lists, so all the sortable lists on Wiki must have been affected. I left a message on the help page and, after about 5 hours, someone came to the rescue. It's all back to normal.

Amandajm (talk) 12:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Arrg! It looked so much like a caption rather than a file name that I missed it. I wish there was a an AWB option to avoid automatic edits to filenames and urls. Thanks for pointing that out and for the repair. Happy editing. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 14:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Flame fougasse

Hello Gaius Cornelius, I am still translating some of your articles (as I am fond of history and WWII). "The work was dangerous, Livens and Banks were experimenting with five-gallon drums in the shingle at Hythe when a short circuit triggered several weapons." This sentence has been written by you. I would like to have a precision about the city/village of Hythe, because it seems that there are three cities/villages named Hythe in England. Unfortunately, I do not have Banks book. Could you please help me? Have a nice evening and Best regards, Skiff (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Skiff: Banks does not explicitly say which Hythe he means, but from the context it is clear that it must be Hythe, Kent. This is further backed up by Banks' description of a shingle beach which be right for that location. Keep up the good work; I hardly speak a word of French, but I do sometimes look at you pages. Kind regards Gaius Cornelius (talk) 08:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick answer, Gaius Cornelius. I have added the precision on both articles. Thanks for the "good work", but I am only translating some of your good articles. My goal at the moment, is to make the french version of British anti-invasion preparations of World War II recognized as a featured article. Unfortunately, I still have 9 big articles about canals, parks and others subjects (not so interesting for me) to translate to remove all the red links, it will take time but I am optimistic. Next step will be removing the red links in the french version of British hardened field defences of World War II. Please continue to write article as you are used to, it a real pleasure to read them and to share it with French reader. Kind regards, Skiff (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for the copyediting on some of the castle articles. Much appreciated! Hchc2009 (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome! Gaius Cornelius (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Poitiers

Hi. Would you please explain to me what changes you did to Battle of Poitiers article and why you used AWB? As I look at the diffs I see no significant changes. In fact I see no changes at all. Why do you not make changes the conventional way? Repeated on article talk page. Thanks in advance for you for your explaination. Mugginsx (talk) 12:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

There are quite a few changes. None of them are particularly significant except to nudge the article nearer to the WP:MOS. AWB is a convenient way of achieving this. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 13:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, the problem is, I and other editors cannot readily see the changes to either agree or disagree with. Could you please make you changes in the conventional way. My understanding is that AWB is primarily to be used for spelling, punctuation, and other such changes. Content changes should be made in way that other editors can see and acknowledge. Edit summarys are important for viewing and possible discussion and they are also educational to new or newish editors.I have looked and still cannot tell what you changed because the previous edits look the same as the red linked changes you show. Perhaps I am doing something wrong? That is all I am saying. Here is the guideline:

Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser AutoWikiBrowser (often abbreviated AWB), is a semi-automated MediaWiki editor for Microsoft Windows 2000/XP/Vista/7 designed to make tedious repetitive tasks quicker and easier. (AWB also functions reasonably well under Wine on GNU/Linux but this is not officially supported.) It is essentially a browser that automatically opens up a new page when the last is saved. When set to do so, it suggests some changes (typically formatting) that are generally meant to be incidental to the main change. Mugginsx (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Most of the changes that show up red in the difference are different because of a minor punctuation change such as removing an extraneous space. Other reasons may include replacing a character with one that looks very similar - in some cases literally identical - this is done by AWB some unicode etc characters that look ok on some browsers should be replaced with characters that are more widely correclty rendered. These changes may seem minor but they keep Wikipedia useable by all; AWB does these changes automatically and does not add a mention of them to the edit summary. When I edited that article I was looking for more major changes, I did not find what I was looking for but judged the effort worth saving anyway. You can rest assured that if "red changes" look the same then they are the same and making those changes by any other means would have produced exactly the same difference report. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 11:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I see now. Thank you for your explanation. Mugginsx (talk) 14:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

History of Penkridge

After the last tussle, you may be pleased to know how pleased I was that you unleashed AWB intelligently on this article. It's made a considerable overall improvement through lots of small changes. Thanks. Sjwells53 (talk) 08:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome. It is nice to be appreciated. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 11:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

AWB date fixes

Hi. How do you get AWB to do this? I can't seem to find it in either the options or in the user manual... Thanks! Nikthestoned 10:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It is not in the user manual. I use a set of regex expressions to perform these changes. They work quite well, but a bit of manual checking is required to ensure that nothing has go wrong with an edit. If you are interested, I'd be happy to share my regex set with you. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 11:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That would be great, thanks! Nikthestoned 12:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure how best to get my AWB set-up to you. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, a fair concern you raise! I've no idea, having only really played with AWB for a minimal amount of time (for some reason I can't seem to make it do anything I want!)... Thanks anyways - if you do figure out a way please do let me know! Nikthestoned 14:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

Petroleum Warfare Department

Hello Gaius Cornelius, First, I would like to wish you a happy new year. Second, I have discovered that you have started to write User:Gaius Cornelius/Petroleum Warfare Department, have you planned to finished it? I will translate it in French but I would prefer to do it after you would have finished it and published it in the main, in order to credite your work in the french wiki. There is no emergency, but I would like to know if you will finished it (this article seems to be in stand by currently). Best regards, Skiff (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Skiff: A happy new year to you too. It is always good to hear from you! The PWD article is a long way from being finished, It is something of an opus magnum for me and some of my smaller articles such as Operation Lucid and Flame fougasse have been just steps on the way. In my life women and children must come first and now I have building work at home to contend with and I am not making much progress with articles. Woe to Wikipedia! Things should start to lighten up in a few weeks. Kind regards, Gaius Cornelius (talk) 10:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer, you are right there are priorities in life and familly is for sure the first one. Moreover, as it will be your masterpiece, I will be patient and wait for the required time, there is no problem. King regards, Skiff (talk) 04:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Gaius Cornelius,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Flame fougasse

Hello Gaius Cornelius, At the end of the article, you have written "Although the flame fougasse was never used in Britain, the idea was exported to Greece by a couple of PWD officers when, in 1941, German invasion threatened. They were reported to have a powerful effect on enemy units.[5]", I would like to know if PWD means Psychological Warfare Division or Petroleum Warfare Department, we have some doubts and without Banks' book, we can not be 100% sure which one is the good one (even tought at the beginning of the article, PWD is defined at the Petroleum Warfare Department). Could you please confirm? Best regards, Skiff (talk) 11:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Banks was referring to the Petroleum Warfare Department. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 09:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Skiff (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Gaius Cornelius, I hope you are well. I have an additionnal question for you. I have been asked for the ISBN of "Chamber's encyclopaedia" mentionned in the article. I have had a look into Amazon site, but without any success. By chance, do you have it? Kind regards, Skiff (talk) 05:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

ISBN numbers did not really come in until about 1970, so I would not expect this book to have one. From memory, the entry is just a brief summary flame warfare developments at the time. Useful, but the article could manage without this reference. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 09:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Skiff (talk) 05:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Gaius Cornelius,

Your article is now a good article in the french wiki. Skiff (talk) 05:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. A team effort! Gaius Cornelius (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

British hardened field defences of World War II

Hello Gaius Cornelius, A french contributor has warned me that in my translation and therefore in the original text, the référence called « dob_review » is defined twice with different contents. Could you please have a quick look? I have noted with pleasure that you are going to develop "Petroleum Warfare Department". Thanks. Have a nice week end. Skiff (talk) 05:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Skiff: thanks for pointing this out. I have changed the name of a reference in the section on the the Ruck Machine Gun Post which I think resolves the issue. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 10:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick answer. Skiff (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Rosemere High School

I see you have contributed to the article about Rosemere High School, and I appreciate that. If you have time, can you take a look at another article, Pinewood Elementary School (Mascouche, Quebec), that breifly describes Pinewood Elementary School, which belongs to the same school board as Rosemere High School.

Give me feedback please.

Thank you!

--MaxAMSC (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I have made a couple of minor changes to Pinewood Elementary School (Mascouche, Quebec). The most important and most urgently needed thing that both articles need is to establish notability. For a guide on this I cannot do any better that to direct you to WP:Notability. Happy editing. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

re: antimony pill

Please don't quote from works of fiction in articles like you did. Not only is a work of fiction not a reliable source on the properties of something like this, but I would think that amount of copying probably actually constitutes a copyright violation. You can normally copy about 3 sentences or so, beyond that it gets really murky, and even that can be too much. You seem to be consistently copying rather more.GliderMaven (talk) 00:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit problem

Hi, while I was away you made this edit which caused problems with the infobox image as it removed a trailing space from the name of the image. Have no idea why the image has a trailing space before the .jpg but nevertheless AWB or script should not be removing such spaces. Keith D (talk) 13:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Oops, sorry! Thanks for fixing it. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Biodiversity of New Caledonia

I want to thank you by your help in Biodiversity of New Caledonia, you are welcome.Curritocurrito (talk) 08:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Ocotea Lauraceae

Hello, how are you? I have edited in Ocotea I saw that you like biodiversity articles. Can you help me to edit again Ocotea? Palecloudedwhite wipe out the article over and over again. In any case I thank you it very much. Curritocurrito (talk) 10:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Alas, I have no special interest in biodiversity articles. Palecloudedwhite is a capable and experienced editor, he may be better able to help you. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 07:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Kirkcaldy

thanks for your edits. just to let you know, i had to reinstate the town centre walkabout reference because that is where i found the information on the no. of people listed on the memorial that were killed in the two main wars.

also the fact there are two seperate sources by the civic society from 2000 (Beveridge Park in the Year 2000 and Town Centre Walkabout) which didn't help matters! i'm sure there is a way to discinct the two seperate sources, but i do not know how to do this. Kilnburn (talk) 12:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Bermuda Bowl date format changes

Hi, What is the rationale for today's date format changes at Bermuda Bowl (diff)?

They seem arbitrary to me. The article barely identifies any "day": "June 6-20" appear in row 1937, column two of one table; "Saturday, October 29" appears once in prose. In the references there were several "Retrieved yyyy-mm-dd", not one in another format.

Do you know whether the article was identified as needing attention for date formats? for the typo "progressivly"? for placement of {{anchor}} immediately prior to a section heading? If the latter, then I need to read documentation somewhere because I have anchored there many times, so to speak. Thanks. --P64 (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The rationale for changing the dates is that the article is tagged with {{Use dmy dates|date=August 2011}}. This can only be seen while editing, it appears just below the External links heading. "progressivly" is just an obvious typo. I am not sure what you mean about the placement of {{anchor}}? Gaius Cornelius (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply.

You inserted one line of whitespace in two instances where a section heading immediately followed {{anchor}}. Frequently when I have replaced a section heading, I have placed {{anchor}} on the preceding line of code. (I wouldn't do this if I could readily ascertain that no one links to the heading, and I might not do it if I knew that the only links were from User space.) --P64 (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The extra lines that were added were not consciously added by me, rather they were automatically added as a part of AWBs general fixes. I am not familiar with this template. If I understand your intentions, would it be better to use the == {{anchor|foo}} Section title == method? Otherwise, if this is going to create an on-going problem, it needs to be addressed at the AWB page: Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

(emphasis added)

Some problems with that method have been (before my arrival last week) underway at Template talk: Anchor#moving anchors inside headings. And there is no technical problem caused by the whitespace. Thanks. --P64 (talk) 15:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Chaco War and the Bougainville Campaign Op-ed: Remembering conflict

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. When you recently edited Operation Josephine B, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page High tension (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Operation Josephine B

Yngvadottir (talk) 08:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Operation Josephine B

Hello Gaius Cornelius, No problem, I will have a look this weekend when I will have more time. Regards, Skiff (talk) 03:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to answer very late. I have read carefully the both articles. They are no discrepancy. The english one is more detailled (participation of the Poles, consequences...), the only difference is about "Twelve German soldiers were shot for failing to protect the station against the saboteurs", this is presented in the French article as a rumor. Regards, Skiff (talk) 08:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to be sure

Gaius Cornelius is away (talk · contribs) isn't your alternative account? Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 15:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Nothing to do with me! Gaius Cornelius (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Just as I thought. Thanks for he quick response. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 17:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. When you recently edited List of 24 characters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Holden (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 03:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:MMA

Thanks for helping to make MMA articles on wikipedia better! In September 168 people made a total of 956 edits to MMA articles. I noticed you havn't listed yourself on the WikiProject Mixed martial arts Participants page. Take a look, sign up, and don't forget to say hi on the talk page. Kevlar (talk) 03:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVIII, September 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: AustralianRupert on artillery in South Australia, and Nick-D on Venice's empire Op-ed: Nick-D on the "Kokoda: Beyond the Legend" conference

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project and/or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Cecil Vandepeer Clarke

Hello! Your submission of Cecil Vandepeer Clarke at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! LauraHale (talk) 21:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Issues still exist; I've just noted there what still needs to be done. I hope you can take care of them soon. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hello Gaius Cornelius, It has been a long time I have not written to you, I hope you are well. I have a question about a translation I am going to do. I know that you have not written it but the contributor seems to be away for a long time, so I am asking you. In the article on the Norway Debate, it is written "On behalf of the Admiralty, he had also advised that a major landing in Norway was not realistically within Germany's powers." What does it means? Who can not realize a major landing in Norway Germany or England according to the Admiralty? Unfortunately, my level in English is not so good enough to choose the good translation. Could you please help me?

PS: I have notice that you are still working on the article about the Petroleum Warfare Department, I hope you will have finished soon (you seem to be not to far from the end). Have a nice week end. Skiff (talk) 06:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Skiff: what the phrase means is that Churchill while speaking on behalf of the Admiralty [that is, the Navy] said that it was not possible for Germany to invade Norway. Which just goes to show that Churchill was not right about everything. That article with its quotes from political speeches is likely to have quite a bit of difficult English. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to help although I expect to be away from Wikipedia for several days.

Yes, I am still working on the PWD article. There is a substantial section that needs re-righting before I feel I can move it to the main space and there is still quite a bit of expansion to do too.

Gaius Cornelius (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks you for your reply, it has greatly help me. Thanks for your proposal, I will ask you if I need clarification. Have a nice day. Skiff (talk) 06:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit error discovered

Hi Gaius,
I've just picked up an error in your edit of South African Class 16 4-6-2 as of 19:55, 23 June 2012.
In Line 118
"built to run on 4 feet 8½ inches (1,435 millimetres) Standard gauge" was changed to
"built to run on .{{convert|4|ft|8+1/2|in|m}}. Standard gauge"
with unnecessary fullstops ahead of and following the {{convert}} template.
If this was done by a BOT you may want to run it again to fix possible similar errors elsewhere.
I fixed this one by using {{RailGauge|4ft8.5in}} instead of {{convert}}.
André Kritzinger 23:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I will investigate. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIX, October 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; milestone for the Fortifications task force; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/October 2012/Hawkeye7 on mission command Op-ed: The ed17 on how The Bugle could be improved

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ian Rose (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Cecil Vandepeer Clarke

Yngvadottir (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Third Reading Wiki Meetup

You are invited to the third Reading Wiki Meetup which will take place at The Hope Tap, 99-105 Friar Street, Reading RG1 1EP on Sunday 20 January 2013 from 1.00 pm. If you have never been to one, this is an opportunity to meet other Wikipedians in an informal atmosphere for Wiki and non-Wiki related chat and for beer or food if you like. Experienced and new contributors are all welcome. This event is definitely not restricted just to discussion of Berkshire related topics. Bring your laptop if you like and use the free Wifi or just bring yourself. Even better, bring a friend! Click the link for full details. Looking forward to seeing you. Philafrenzy (talk) 02:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXX, November 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Sturmvogel_66, AustralianRupert, and Nick-D look at ships, soldiers, and railways Op-ed: Nick-D on navigating the FA and A-Class review processes

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Australian Christian Churches‎

An article that you have been involved in editing, Australian Christian Churches‎ , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Gaius Cornelius, I wish you a happy new year. Skiff (talk) 10:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Simon Harley on British battleships and Nick-D on the French Resistance Interview: Five editors discuss some less-represented areas of military history Op-ed: Ian Rose looks back on 2012

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Gaius Cornelius/Petroleum Warfare Department

This page looks wonderful compared to our existing stub (which was created by a banned user) - is it ready to be moved into article space? --Versageek 22:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I have held it back because there are large parts missing and a substantial - and important - section that need to be rewritten. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Be patient, I am waiting for [User_talk:Gaius_Cornelius#Petroleum_Warfare_Department one year]. Gaius Cornelius, I hope you will have enought time to do all the work you want to do this year. Best regards. Skiff (talk) 10:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Mongol naval power Op-ed: Crisco 1492 on war films

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

USS Scamp

You did some unintentional damage to USS Scamp (SS-277) with this edit: [8]

Many of the depths had a zero chopped off the end, so 100 feet becomes 10 feet, 220 becomes 22, etc. I can't simply revert because there have been too many intervening edits. Any chance you'd like to repair this? Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you for spotting that. Not sure what went wrong, I will review similar edits made around that time. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 08:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. It's actually kind of refreshing to find it wasn't yet another vandal. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited George Pirie Thomson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page King's College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at US Army leadership since World War II

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of George Pirie Thomson

Hello! Your submission of George Pirie Thomson at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Andrew Gray (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It has been over a week since you replied on the nomination template, and you were going to start work or return in a few days. Will you be back soon? Please let us know there. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• New issues have been identified with the latest review. Please stop by. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• Final ping. If this doesn't get attention soon, the nomination will be closed. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I have been unavailable recently and I will not be able to get to this for another week or so. I did not realise this would take so long. Please close the nomination. Thanks for all your trouble. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

"T" is for typo and also for thanks!

It seems that you are one of those guys which are patiently removing all the mess I left on the entries I (eternally and ineffectively) cure... Well done, and thank you very much!!! :-D Daniele.tampieri (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive feedback - always welcome. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at refugees during the Battle of France Interview: Editors discuss writing articles about the former Yugoslavia Op-ed: Prioryman on German V-weapon sites and the historian's responsibility

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 04:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Sturmvogel 66 and Hawkeye7 look at aspects of the Pacific War Op-ed: ErrantX considers the rabbit hole of research

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Dumelow on the French Foreign Legion and Nick-D on New Zealand military history Op-ed: Nick-D on military history tourism

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Gargoyles characters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vengeance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Varmint rifle may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Petroleum Warfare Department

Hello Gaius Cornelius,

What a good news! Your opus magnum is finished. It had taken time, but I think it was worth it. I think you are right a new article need to be stabilized. So I will wait for corrections/improvements from other contributors before starting anything. Moreover, I think that you will propose it to be a FA, so new questions, implementations will certainly happen. Now, as it is almost finished, what will be the next one? ;-) Skiff (talk) 07:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Works on the RNZAF, World War I in the Baltic, and British battleship construction Op-ed: Anchors Aweigh for the Majestic Titans

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Petroleum Warfare Department

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For writing Petroleum Warfare Department :). What a fantastically comprehensive article! Ironholds (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Image discussion at article 17 Mile Drive

A discussion is underway about images on an article you have contributed to. Please help find a consensus for the article stub at: Talk:17-Mile Drive#17 Mile Drive info box and section images replacement.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

My only contribution was a tiny edit to the caption in March 2006! Gaius Cornelius (talk) 10:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Request to take part in a survey

I am Piotr Konieczny, a fellow Wikipedian (User:Piotrus) and a researcher of Wikipedia (http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=gdV8_AEAAAAJ). I am currently (in collaboration with WMF) embarking on a project trying to understand why the most active Wikipedia contributors (such as yourself) may reduce their activity, or retire. We have a growing understanding of why an average editor may do so (see http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Former_Contributors_Survey_Results), but we have a very limited understanding of why the top editors would limit their contributions. Yet it is the top editors like yourself who contribute most of Wikiepdia's content, thus understanding this is of vital concern to Wikipedia's project future.

I am contacting you because you are among the top Wikipediana by number of edits, yet your editing activity shows a decline. I would very much appreciate if you would take a minute and answer the following four short questions. Please note this is not a mass email; I am contacting only few dozen of editors like yourself, and each response is extremely valuable. Your response will not be made public, and your privacy will be fully respected.

If you would like to help out in this project and take part in a very short survey, please send me a wikiemail, so that I can send you an email with the survey questions. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Australia's frontier wars Interview: What Wikimedia chapters can offer military history editors

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Reversion on Screw-propelled vehicle

Why did you revert my edit to Screw-Propelled Vehicle? I changed the spelling of specialised to specialized, which I do not consider wrong, both spellings being correct. I also changed <nowiki>auger-like to auger-like,</> because the link is only for "auger" not "auger-like". I am not an experianced user, so please help me. I really do not intend to start an edit war. ~~~~

Sorry for the delay in replying, I have been away. I reverted your edit because there was no good reason to change that spelling. In general, you should not change a spelling unless there is a good reason - more than personal preference. Thanks for your contribution, happy editing. ~~~~

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the death of Osama bin Laden Op-ed: Sturmvogel_66 presents his secrets of prolific contribution

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) ~~~~~

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill ^[talk] ~~~~~