User talk:Gaius Cornelius/Archive

Welcome[edit]

Hello Gaius Cornelius/Archive, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! You (Talk) 19:10, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Primary candidates VFD[edit]

Many of the candidates for the June 14, 2005, congressional primary have been proposed for deletion. I am writing those who worked on those articles to request that they offer their votes against the proposal. The VFD's can be found starting at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_8#Peter_Fossett. It is my view that we ought to provide a complete record of the election and by deleting so called "minor" candidates we do a disservice to them and the historical record. Please vote against all these proposals.PedanticallySpeaking 14:54, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Bayeux Tapestry[edit]

I was wondering if you've ever actually seen it? I was lucky enough to have seen it during a business trip to France 11 years ago. Our group was absolutely enthralled with the history and the drama portrayed in it. We called it a medieval version of "Star Wars"... although it's actually the other way around, isn't it? Wahkeenah 17:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No I have not seen it - yet. It really is not all that far away. By-the-way, I live in Farnborough, Hampshire. I like your user page! Gaius Cornelius 18:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in Minnesota, a long way from France and England. :( Our group liked the imagery of the Tapestry and referred to it from time to time during our project for illustrative purposes or kind of an "in-joke". One good image is labeled NVNTII WILLELMI (William's messengers) whose sole purpose seems to be to show men on galloping horses. That was a good symbol for anything to do with "delivering" a system upgrade. Then there was the famous panel showing Halley's comet, labeled ISTI MIRANT STELLA (They wonder at the star). As Windows 3.1 was fairly new at the time, we had an illustration of a group of trainees, titled ISTI MIRANT FENESTRAE III.I Pardon my fractured Latin. :) Wahkeenah 19:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fishing hook[edit]

>...in your contribution to fishing hook you made a red-link to Fishing spoons.

No, that was not me, it was by 150.140.166.111

> Are fishing spoons the same thing as a Spoon lure?.

Yes, I guess so. I changed the link.

MH 19:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I made a mistake attributing the edit to you. Anyway, thanks for the fix.

Barnstar[edit]

I, Garion96 hereby award you this Minor Barnstar for all your brilliant minor edits!

Garion96 02:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar! Martin 19:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like we are giving each other barnstars. :) Thank you! Garion96 (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regading "Delete Kochi image which already appears in two other articles both of which are linked to from here."

Why did you delete the image? For a good article a picture should be in the main article itself, People wont go to all links, most of the time, only if they see it visually they try to click the links,

Kjrajesh

The picture that you inserted in the fishing article is a very nice one, but the section on fishing net is quite short and there is only room for a couple of pictures. I don't know what the article looked like in your browser, but in mine a third picture was decidedly cluttered, making the article look ugly. The Chinese fishing nets are unusual; in the interests of balance a general article should emphasise the typical over the unusual. The two pictures that are there already may not be perfect, but the fishing methods illustrated are world-wide and ancient.

Happy Diwali[edit]

Misspellings[edit]

Tnx for the tip, I had already read it (and used it) from your msg on the project talk page. Together with the google toolbar it really works great. About "Govener", couldn't that be fixed with a bot? The "is is" you have to do manually because it's either just a double word or a typo. But govener I would think is always a typo, so a bot perhaps would be great for that. Mind you, I don't know a lot about bots though. Either way, same to you, keep up the good work. Garion96 (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of music videos by year[edit]

In an effort to have this vote go as swimmingly as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of music videos by name, I'm pointing it out to all the people who voted on the previous one, as it's basically the same information, differently arranged. Had I known it existed at the time, I would have included it in the AfD. Too late now. Thanks. -R. fiend 01:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar[edit]

Having looked at your contributions I certainly think you deserve something yourself.

Award

I award this BarnTsar to Gaius Cornelius for his tireless work fixing spelling mistakes :-) the wub "?!" 19:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LOL!

Al Leong[edit]

Thanks for the spelling correction. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk), 2005-12-1 T 05:22 Z

Thanks for noticing![edit]

Thank you for giving me my first award. My goal has been to not screw anything up, so I stick to minor edits and such. So far I rank about a rung above vandals. I do appreciate the recognition of my (minor) efforts. Plus I am having fun! Schmiteye 19:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome of course. Minor edits are a valuable contribution and there is always plenty to do - it is like painting the Forth Bridge!

Out here in the California the Golden Gate Bridge gets painted continuously.--Schmiteye 20:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You[edit]

Hey. I would just like to echo what Schmiteye said above. I concentrate mainly on minor things such as spelling, grammar, wikification and categorizing articles and I greatly appreciate the recognition. Thank You Forbsey 17:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Me, too. I'm just one of those annoying pedantic people who insist on tidying things up. It's nice to be appreciated.CarolGray 19:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling error[edit]

Thank you for pointing out the spelling error in Gheorghe Dinică - Shaddow i.o. Shadow. It is my mistake. But I don't understand why you just marked it with a comment? Why not correct it on the spot? AdamSmithee 21:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AdamSmithee: Thanks for sorting that out. I fix a lot of spelling errors, but in my experience one has to be very careful with the titles of books, songs, etc. It sometimes turns out that an unusual spelling is intentional. When I cannot check myself, I just leave a comment in the hope that somebody more knowledgeable will pick it up. Gaius Cornelius 23:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see now. It was just a bad translation from Romanian. Thank you again for pointing it out. AdamSmithee 07:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cantonment[edit]

Hi I have posted an answer for you here :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jalandhar Dhirad January 14, 2006 02:24 (UTC)

Upload/Download[edit]

Gaius - I found your page because you fixed a typo in an article I had also touched - thank you so much! But I have a question about the My pictures section of your page. You say that you have downloaded all of these pictures, but I think you mean that you have uploaded them? One generally downloads from a server to your own machine, but I think you mean that you have generously contributed these images to wikipedia by uploading them from your machine to the wikipedia server? Podkayne 14:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right! I will fix that. Gaius Cornelius 16:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AWB[edit]

Hey, looks like you got the hang of using the program! nice one, just wondering, did you use the database scanning program I made as well to generate the list of articles containing " the the " ? Martin 17:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, AWB works very well. I was using a google search for "the the" which seemed like a good place to start. How do I use the database scanning program? Gaius Cornelius 17:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The database tool is here, hopefully it is self explanatory, else I am more than happy to use it for you and send you the results (also you have to download the 800mb database which you might not want to do if you have a cap on your interent bandwidth!). Martin 12:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, 800Mb! Well, it is not out of the question... I got to here and then did not know what to do. Sorry to be so thick, can you please advise.

The one you want is called 20051213_pages_articles.xml.bz2 (always look for the newest one with "articles" in the title) you will need to unzip this file, I use winrar. Let me know how it goes. (btw I understand that a new dump file is due very shortly) Martin 20:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good idea, I'll make it so it ignores articles with that template. Martin 22:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend[edit]

Gaius, I saw in Curses in Islam that you were using the AWB to correct the misspelling "recomend"...unfortunately you corrected it to "reccommend", which is also a misspelling. The correct spelling is "recommend", i.e. one C, two Ms. Babajobu 18:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Bit of mystery though as I have just checked the find and replace table that I was using - it is still in my PCs memory - and it looks correct. No excuse of course, I wasn't looking hard enough. I will check my related edits. Gaius Cornelius 19:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a -> an[edit]

Are you sure about "an United States"? Guettarda 20:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a mistake - where did you see it? Gaius Cornelius 20:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry - I was looking at the diff, not the text, so I missed that it was piped (the edit actually changed "a American" to "an American", but the diff said "a [[United States|American..."). Sorry about that. Guettarda 21:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks...[edit]

For the amazing volume of work you have done ridding the 'pedia of a variety of common mistakes. Martin 23:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for Duplicate Words[edit]

I am curious to know how you hunt for duplicated words? I use WP:AWB myself which is highly effective. Gaius Cornelius 16:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do a Google search on the wikipedia site using the parameters

"the the" -talk: -user: -wiki/Wikipedia:

I copy the page to an OpenOffice file to do spell checking. I assume that an article containing duplicated words has not been carefully proofread and thus is a prime suspect for spelling errors. I have three separate files for US, UK and Canadian English open at the same time. Choosing the right flavour of English can sometimes be an awkward choice as many articles are a combination of US and UK English and have no obvious link to either country.

The whole process becomes quite mechanical and does not require me to do anything difficult like thinking. I am usually multitasking by listening to music or a movie at the same time. GreatWhiteNortherner 02:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This all sounds rather antiquated. I have written various programs to automate this process. You are welcome to the programs, but you will need a Linux (or some flavor of Unix) machine to run them. Is it possible to get a recent copy of the all English language Wikipedia articles? The statistics pages says the total size is only a few gig. A few hours to download and and hour or so later I could produce a list of duplicate words (or spelling errors) by article, by most frequent duplicate (or spelling error). I have various grammar checkers, but they can sometimes generate a lot of false positives.

Derek farn 00:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GreatWhiteNortherner and Derek farn: I use a combination of tools written by Bluemoose. Firstly, I use DataBase Search Tool to create a list of articles containing a particular string or regular expression and then I use AutoWikiBrowser to work through the article list and do the edits. Each edit must be verified by the user - false positives are a problem, but with experience it is possible to automatically skip a high proportion of them. Gaius Cornelius 17:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bluemoose's tools look useful, but are Windows XP only (pity he did not write them in Java). I have downloaded a copy of the database dump and am running a duplicate check now (2.5 cpu hours and counting). Words such as that, had, to, and many are very popular duplicates. There are also many duplicate pairs (eg, this is this is a duplicate pair). I will post the top 15-10 most common duplicates when I know whtat they are. I appreciate that the changes have to be done manually, but I'm sure people would like to have some idea of what the common duplicates are. Derek farn 17:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can search for ALL duplicate words of one or more characters using the following regular expression:

" ([A-Za-z][A-Za-z]*) \1 "

Note that this will only find whole words. Also, this regex only finds words separated by single spaces. A more sophisticated regular expression would find words separated by non-spaces such as full stop characters, parenthsis etc.

You can avoid some common false positives by excluding matches to the following regular expression:

"( had had )|( ha ha )|( million million )|( her her )|( great great )|( that that )|( had had )|( ha ha )|( million million )|( her her )|( great great )|(C plus plus)|( log log )|( none none )|( wah wah )|( la la )"

I am still working through a list of duplicate words found in a database dump dating from December 2005. This generated a little under 10,000 hits! The number of false positives is quite high, partly because at the time I was not quite so good at eliminating them in the first instance (but AWB can automatically skip through these) and because other people have been eliminating them.

False positives are a problem and there is no substitute for the Mark I eyeball. It is for this reason that I am continuing to work through a list generated from an old version of the database: if I restarted with a fresh list from an up-to-date database, I would go through all the false positives again.

If anybody is interested in co-operating in the elimination of duplicate words, may I respectfully suggest that you allow me to continue with my search for words separated by spaces while others work on more sophisticated searches for words separated by one or more non-space characters. A simple example of this would be:

" ([A-Za-z][A-Za-z]*) \1\."

i.e. a duplicate word where the last word ends with a full stop.

A list of the most common duplicates would be very useful I am sure. The place to post your findings would be Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings under Repetitions.

Gaius Cornelius 17:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See Lists_of_common_misspellings/Repetitions. List of duplicate pairs duplicate pairs to follow. Derek farn 02:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guqin[edit]

You just removed one note of a 7-string tuning at guqin. There *should* be two Cs in this tuning. I guess watch that you don't remove things that are already correct, and don't let the "bot" run wild! ;-O Badagnani 22:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right of course, sorry about that and thanks for picking up on the error. WP:AWB is not a bot, I eyeball every change. In this case, the first edit was OK, but I missed the second edit that deleted a 'C'. Gaius Cornelius 22:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary[edit]

Hi. I've recently found a number of edit summaries on my watchlist starting with "AWB assisted ...".

Starting your edit summary with a link promoting some software makes it slower for me to scan my watchlist. It's also frustrating because I can't even run Windows software on my computer, so it feels a bit like you are spamming my watchlist (no offence intended). Would you mind setting your AWB software so that it doesn't add the promotional link to the edit summary, or at least so it puts it at the end, like "... using AWB"?

If you don't mind, would you also leave a note for the developers whether you agree with me or not, at talk:AutoWikiBrowser? Thanks, Michael Z. 2006-02-20 05:33 Z

AWB does not give the user any choice about the edit summary, it always starts with "AWB assisted" and there is nothing I personally can do about it. Sorry. Gaius Cornelius 19:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mistake using AWB[edit]

In the article Feshbach resonance, you removed an a from the line "labeled by a2p0 with a a doubly occupied orbital and p a virtual orbital". a was a variable name should not have been removed. I've reverted the edit and changed all the variables in the article to math-mode so it shouldn't happen again on that article but I also thought it was worth mentioning it to you. Kymara 18:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Sorry about that and thanks for sorting it out. I really am very careful, but I slipped up that time. Gaius Cornelius 18:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia survey[edit]

Hi. I'm doing a survey of Wikipedia editors as part of a class research project. It's quick, anonymous, and the data will be made available to the Wikipedia community later this month. Would you like to take part? More info here. Thanks! Nonplus 00:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Periods[edit]

Is it correct for all captions to have a period at the end, as you put in R-Type? To me, it doesn't look quite right when the caption is just saying what something is, rather than explaining the picture. Spottedowl 17:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The standard advice on captions is that they should, preferably, be complete sentences -- in which case they should get a full stop at the end. See Wikipedia:Captions#Complete_sentences. However, if a caption is not a proper sentence then perhaps it should not get a full stop and perhaps I have been over doing it. I will look into this further. Gaius Cornelius 22:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More typos per edit please[edit]

Please use AWB to fix more typos per edit. Everytime you change 1 character, the database saves the entire file again, resulting in a large waste of space for how little you're changing. Something like beginning to begining is understandable to me (although others don't agree), but certainly a to an is stretching just a bit; kinda like making dont to don't. JoeSmack ^Talk 17:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that while it is desirable that the database is used efficiently, that is not a good reason not to correct a mistake. I am a bit confused by the example that you give: how are your one-letter edits any diffent to mine? In any case, when using AWB, I generally have at least some of the general fixes turned on and I have a couple of additional fixes besides (although I sometimes turn these off just so that the changes that have been made are obvious to a reviewer using diff) consequently many of my a to an edits do indeed include other changes.

As it happens, I am just comming to the end of my cycle of such edits and CmdrObot has recently started finding similar faults that I have missed. If you still feel that this is an issue - I can see that it possibly might be - then it needs to be discussed more generally because there any many editors making similarly sized changes. Gaius Cornelius 21:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My 2 cents: All typo & grammar corrections are good corrections. It is mistakenly thought that small edits are a serious burden for the servers. This is not the case. The database is not queried every time someone looks at any particular page. The pages are cached by the web servers and compression is used on the disk drives. Diff lookups do use a small amount of resources but even then there is caching involved as well as the fact that the number of active editors is extremely low compared to the number of people who view Wikipedia articles.

—-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(esperanza) 2006-05-05 16:06

Oddball Award[edit]

		The Oddball Barnstar
		For your fine contributions regarding fuddling cups, puzzle jugs and yetholm-type shields I present to you the Oddball Barnstar Award.Rosa 07:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am almost lost for words. Fuddling cups and puzzle jugs are indeed rather oddball; they were popular in the past, but that was well before the internet and people had to make their own entertainment. Yetholm-type shields may be unusual, even to the point of being obscure, but the subject in entirely serious. Gaius Cornelius 21:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Common misspellings[edit]

Gaius Cornelius,

Thanks for letting me know; I didn't realize WP:LCM existed.

Also, I'm looking to see if there is any interest in a Classical Greece and Rome wikiproject. Let me know if you are interested.

Thanks, (^'-')^ Covington 16:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pillbox Pictures[edit]

If you view my website WW2 Coastal Defences Salthouse, Kelling & Weybourne North Norfolk Pictures are avaliable clicking thumbs will take you to higher deff pictures.

Have uploaded picture of the Norcon Pillbox to Wilkipedia.

Barnstar award[edit]

Thank you very much! Most of my work here is quite tedious and it's extremely encouraging to see that it is noticed.

Regards, —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(esperanza) 2006-05-05 15:15

Wikipedia:WikiProject NBL[edit]

Hey Gaius Cornelius/Archive

I noticed that you have made several edits in basketball, and I would like you to join WikiProject NBL. Please drop a line on my talk page and put your name on the participants list if interested.

Cheers, Jasrocks 06:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User_talk:Waggers#Please_AWB_with_more_care[edit]

Thanks for the warning and for correcting my mistake. I'll try to be more careful in future. Cheers, Waggers 08:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghotki[edit]

I am updating information about the districts of Sindh province of Pakistan. Ghotki is a town in Ghotki District. The historical information that I deleted was cut and paste info probably from another website without reference or sources and was not wikified. I will first finish the updating of information for all districts and then may add historical accounts. I am sorry that I did not add description of my edits. I will be reverting your reversion. I am trying to update information on Districts of Pakistan page. Siddiqui 02:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting in touch. All that is required is a little explanation for such edits - otherwise they are indisinguishable from vandalism! Gaius Cornelius 09:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

question[edit]

yes hi u edited a peace on the pepsi play for a billion i think. I was wondering if u knew if pepsi was going to bring back the promotion or the gameshow thanks.

Pillbox at Gotham Nottinghamshire SK 523302[edit]

The Gotham Pillbox is interesting for two reasons this brick-shuttered type 22 pillbox on a hillside at Gotham has a claim to fame in that it possibly came under Luftwaffe attack and suffered damage that is visible today. It guarded a searchlight position and was apparently attacked by an aircraft trying to put out the light. Is there any other pillbox that shows damage by enemy attack? The evidence of gun and shell fire that can be seen on some defence structures has usually been done by our own forces in training or in the testing of new weapons. Also the damage exposed the roof reinforcing and shows part of an old iron bedstead as iron/steel was in sort supply they used whatever they could to reinforce the roof. (Palmiped 13:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for your comments. That sounds like the pillbox I read about that had the bed parts used as re-inforcement. I don't suppose you have any pictures of it? There are just a handfull of pillboxes that actually came under fire - either from aircraft or MTBs off the coast. Gaius Cornelius 15:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have found picture on web Gotham Pillbox but I live in next village so will take some pics when time allows. (Palmiped 16:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Ruck Pillbox[edit]

Ruck Pillbox made from Stanton air raid shelter sections. Image can be found at Ruck Pillbox this is located at Stapleford Notts Location, possibly only known example were common in the north east but very unusual further south (Palmiped 21:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks, I will make a link to it. Gaius Cornelius 22:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving the location - does it still exist? Gaius Cornelius 22:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, picture was taken by Mike Osborne author of a couple of books on Defences & Pillboxes at a guess I`d say it was taken about 2000. Do you know if Ruck Pillbox is same as Ruck Machine gun post? (Palmiped 00:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Hmmm... Good point, I just assumed that they are the same thing. I will check it out. Thanks. Gaius Cornelius 00:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. this document (pdf) includes the words: "A ruck machine gun post or pillbox (Defence of Britain site 11; CBA_DOB-12323; 474850 103220) was located just to the north of this...". So, it seems likely that they are the same thing. Gaius Cornelius 00:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palmiped: I have visited the location you identified and found the machine-gun post with little difficulty. I have some photos and will post them into the article soon. Please also see my comments in Talk:British anti-invasion preparations of World War II. Gaius Cornelius 01:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your are on the ball, look forward to seeing the photos. Is this the correct location? [1]

and [2] (Palmiped 08:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, that is the right place. If you stand at the mouth of the foot-tunnel under the motorway, you will be facing south and the structure is in the corner of the field diagonally left. If you look on the Google aerial view, you can just make it out. Gaius Cornelius 09:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stanton at War 1939-45 book: I use usedbooksearch search Stanton at War or Stanton Ironworks, have seen it on AbeBooks in the past but no one appears to have a copy at the moment, this book was given to employees. Palmiped 22:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad I guess. Thanks for looking. Gaius Cornelius 22:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you | units[edit]

Thank you for converting sq km to km². I was doing the same myself along with a lot of other unit formatting (including 'sq m') using a tool in my monobook. If you want to use any of the code, feel free. bobblewik 21:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks. I am done with units for the time being. I hope my edits did not cause you any inconvenience. I see you even found a couple of edits to make in my latest article! Gaius Cornelius 23:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits did not cause me inconvenience. Au contraire, I was delighted that you were saving me effort. The edit of your latest article was no coincidence. I was looking at your page and decided to read it. Then the fancy to run my tool on it took me.

My monobook tools are always available to me as extra tabs in edit mode. To get these tabs, copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to User:Gaius Cornelius/monobook.js. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. To make the tool work, simply click on the 'units' tab or the 'dates' tab in edit mode. The tool shows its proposals in the usual "Show changes" mode. You can then save, cancel or continue editing. Just letting you know, it is up to you.

Anyway, keep up the good work and thanks again for what you did. bobblewik 17:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need your support[edit]

Hey, You have been quite active in editing the Nagpur article. So, go to the discussion page and give your support for nominating Nagpur for the Indian collaboration for this week. --Wikindian 22:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is what you call "quite active"? I am sure you mean well, but I don't like spam being delived to my talk page. Gaius Cornelius 23:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peer reviews[edit]

Hey! Thanks for taking the time to comment on some of the military history peer reviews. A small request, if I may: if it's not too difficult, could you add a regular signature (i.e. ~~~~) at the end of your comments (in addition to putting them under your name as a section header, as you have been doing)? Otherwise, there's no timestamp on them, which makes it very difficult to figure out how long a review has been inactive when it's time to archive them. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 18:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I will remember in future. Gaius Cornelius 18:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Army Talk[edit]

Hi Gaius Cornelius, I saw your re-enactment contributions and wondred if you were on Roman Army Talk as well? We've been discussing Wikipedia entries there. Cheers Salvianus 10:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salve! Yes, I am a very occasional contributor to RAT under the same user name. Is there a specific thread about Wikipedia? Gaius Cornelius 10:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Ave' I've just replied to your RAT post of Wed 24 Aug 2005! I think that's it. I don't have a lot of time for editing Wikipedia, but I'm hoping some of the keen Internet dwellers at RAT might do a bit more. I'm in Comitatus up north, Late Roman. Salvianus 10:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

typo[edit]

Hi, in this edit your replacement for believe was incorrect. It looks like you are using a mixture of you own regexes and the in built typo fixer, feel free to add any more typo fixing regexes to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos thanks Martin 22:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. Gaius Cornelius 00:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IPA2: an Article for Deletion[edit]

Hi, Gaius! I just logged in and noticed that my article is tagged as AfD. I read the comments and I think it is tagged for personal reasons of the AfD initiator. Would you pls leave your comment? As the author, I do not see myself the right person to give comments. I really appreciate your opinion, regardless of what you decide. Thanx! -DrMoslehi 00:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC+3:30)

I don't understand why you have contacted me about this. I have had no input to the article in question and it is a topic I know nothing about and consequently, I don't feel qualified to offer any opinion. I'd like to be able to help, but I really cannot see how I can. Gaius Cornelius 22:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Errors introduced by AWB edit[edit]

Hi. Just noticed your (AWB?) change to Sodor (fictional island). The substance 'china clay' is NOT capitalised (see Kaolinite). I've fixed this edit, but you might like to check any similar edits made by AWB. Regards -- EdJogg 14:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. My ignorance has been reduced. Gaius Cornelius 15:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adaption versus Adaptation[edit]

Hi, You recently made a change in the River Blackfish article changing the word adaption to adaptation. The Oxford English Dictionary lists both words as valid alternatives, thus I do not think it necessary to make this change. Perhaps AWB needs to be educated about alternate word forms.<grin> Nick Thorne 23:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adaption may not be categorically wrong, but adaptation is the more usual. Adaption redirects to adaptation and the latter is generally the usage in Wikipedia titles such as Film adaptation. I could not find adaption in my Collins dictionary and puts me in mind of a confusion with adoption and adaptor. It may have gotten into the Oxford simply because, as sometimes happens, because a mistake becomes common currency - do you have an etymology for that spelling? Gaius Cornelius 06:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Josef Kurmann / Pierre Graber[edit]

Just wondering what was changed in [3]. -- User:Docu

It was a fix of the — symbol, it does not work properly without the semicolon. Sometimes AWB gives a rather confusing indication of what the change was. Gaius Cornelius 22:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balearic Slinger.jpg[edit]

Page doesn't say that you can use it only with attribution. Have you got his authorization? [4] Platonides 21:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have authorisation. It goes like this: Graham, Thanks so much for your interest! I have no problem with the image use. Would you like for me to send you a higher res image? Thanks, Johnny. What page is it that you are refering to? Why did you change the tag? Gaius Cornelius 21:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

K&A canal[edit]

Ages ago yu added some content to the article on the Kennet and Avon Canal. I've done some work on this and the Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal and have put them both up for featured status see discussions at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal & Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kennet and Avon Canal/archive1. I'd be grateful if you had anything you could add to either article or the discussions. — Rod ^talk 12:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dates[edit]

Do you really think that it is useful to link dates when they are just for when a reference was accessed? I won't fight over this, but I think it just clutters the references section with irrelevant links. - Jmabel | Talk 00:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reapplying Changes[edit]

Thanks for reapplying your cleanup changes; I had accidently reverted them when reverting other changes, and wasn't exactly sure how to put them back--before I had a chance to ask, you had already noticed and fixed it yourself. Thanks for your attention!

No problem. I am using some rather complex regexes to do things that are difficult to achieve by hand. Gaius Cornelius 21:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Balearic Slinger.jpg[edit]

Hi, we need a real license for Image:Balearic Slinger.jpg - fair use argument needs concrete reasons per WP:FUC. Stan 13:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Ivy League[edit]

Please don't change "catholic" to "Catholic." It doesn't mean the same thing. In any case, the word was part of a direct quotation from a cited source, and so should never have been edited. -- Rbellin|Talk 15:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Sorry, I missread it. Gaius Cornelius 16:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AWB cleanups[edit]

Perhaps it is built into AWB, but if it is a search and replace, please replace the double hyphens, etc. with the Unicode characters, not the ugly HTML entites. —Centrx→talk • 18:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall from discussions regarding Unicoding characters, the consensus was to make the various types of dash an exception to the rule - i.e. do not replace them with Unicode characters. Is there a new consensus that I am not aware of? Gaius Cornelius 19:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dashes) has been that the HTML entities should not be used (That is, if it can be helped. If an editor uses them because they are easier to type in, that's fine, but search/replace with an automated tool is a different story). They are inelegant in the editing window and the average person has no idea what they are. The width of the Unicode dashes is ambiguous in certain browsers/fonts, but it is at least clear they are dashes and short and fit in. —Centrx→talk • 19:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AWB cleanups seems to cause some little problem. There was a link in Battle of Wuhan named "Order of battle of Battle of Wuhan". You changed it to "Order of battle of Wuhan" with AWB, which is the incorrect article name. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites) 04:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out my mistake and for fixing the article. I have been searching for duplicated words and phrases — they are very common — and failed to pickup on "of battle of battle" as a false positive. Gaius Cornelius 08:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Today's featured article[edit]

Just wanted to let you know a featured article you worked on, 0.999..., was featured today on the Main Page. Tobacman 00:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roman military - peer review[edit]

Hi, this article is currently pending peer review and I see that you have an interest in military history and have peer-reviewed articles before as well as (from your username) at least some interest in Ancient Rome - if you have time I would greatly appreciate any advice or comments you can give within the peer review structure for improving this article. Many Thanks - PocklingtonDan 16:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look. Gaius Cornelius 22:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks (and hello to a fellow brit with Roman leanings) - I've also proposed some changes on the discussion page of "Roman military system" given that its contents are currently a misnomer and do not match the title. Could you comment/vote on whether you approve of the proposed action on the talk page please? Cheers - PocklingtonDan 13:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. I have been making some minor edits to Military of ancient Rome as I study it. I will also take a look at Roman military system. Gaius Cornelius 13:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I saw your various typo corrections, there is probably quite a bit of copyediting yet to do in such a young article, thanks for your efforts. Not to bombard you but could you look at my query of Military history of ancient Rome on its talk page too please? The article contents seem to have nothing to do with the title :-) - Cheers, PocklingtonDan 13:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Will do. Gaius Cornelius 13:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AWB Problem?[edit]

Beware there seem to be a problem with AWB: Take a look at your edit at State observer -- lucasbfr ^talk 19:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. What do you think AWB did wrong? Gaius Cornelius 19:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AWB edits[edit]

Hi Gaius Cornelius. Please be aware of AWB's rules, which warn against making insignificant edits such as only adding/removing white space, moving a stub tag, reordering external links, etc. —Mets501 (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be here (from "was been" fixer)[edit]

Thanks for the welcome and for the suggestions, GC. I just thought I'd try to make very small changes; ergo, "was been." I'm quite confused about how most of this works, and this is the first message I'm sending anyone. If I'm doing it wrong, please let me know. Jdheyerman 20:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jdheyerman: Hello again. Don't worry, you will soon become familiar with how it all works -- just look to what others do. Users vary in how to run a dialogue: some will post to each other's user pages, but most take the view that it is best to reply to a comment where it was posted -- as I am doing now. This is made more straightforward by using the watchlist facility to keep track of when pages are updated. I hope you enjoy your time at Wikipedia, I you have any questions I will be happy to try and help. Gaius Cornelius 19:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I will try to remember to do that (reply to a comment where it was posted). Since you are so kind, another question: I put a watch on your page, but don't know what that does. Do I get some kind of notice when your page changes? Many thanks. Jdheyerman 17:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jdheyerman: When you are signed in, you should see a "my watchlist" link at the top of the page. If you click on that you will be shown a list of all the articles that you have on your watchlist in order of most recent change. That is how most contributors keep aware of what is going on - when there is an update on an article or talk page that they are interested in. Your own user talk page is a special case, you should get an alert when that page is changed. Gaius Cornelius 18:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom[edit]

Hello.

Why did you and AWB remove the link that I put in to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 in the above article? OK, I should have de-linked the reference to the Act near the bottom of the page, but, since CPs are made possible by the Act, it seemed important to have a more visible link up at the top. Is it that links shouldn't be in headers? Or what? Best --GuillaumeTell 01:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GuillaumeTell: it is an automatic AWB action rather than a conscious act on my part and that my AWB edit immediately followed your recent insertion of the link was just coincidence. Presumably this AWB rule is intending to enforce the WP:MOS diktat against links in headings (of which I have some dim recollection of reading). I am not sure exactly what rules AWB is following; it is possible that it only unlinks duplicate links that occur in headings. It does seem that this can be a little heavy handed in some cases such as this. Thank you for bringing this to my attention; I will investigate further. Gaius Cornelius 10:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again and thanks for this. I checked the MOS (specifically WP:MOSHEAD#Linking) and you're certainly right about what it says. So, because the heading was delinked automatically, it's highly likely that it would happen again if I reinstate it. I've devised a satisfactory workround. One lives and learns. Well, I hope I do! --GuillaumeTell 11:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I'd like to award this for the tireless efforts in correcting the mistakes and typos over the years, amazing work!

Thanks![edit]

Thanks for the cleanup work. I accidentally didn't reference the items correctly as I should have. I shall correct future mistakes myself. Thanks again.

reference cleanup[edit]

I suppose changes like this are better than nothing, so I'm not complaining, but I don't know if you've looked into doing something like this, which seems to me to be what it takes to really make the citations useful. & I'm sure some would go even further. - Jmabel | Talk 02:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jmabel: You have done a good job with the PLO article. I have not really aimed much higher that improving the appearance of articles that have a mixture of footnotes and inline URLs. Gaius Cornelius 07:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

error introduced in robert crowley (printer) entry[edit]

you changed "goddes" to "goddess" without heeding the context. This is a 16thC spelling for "god's" and moreover, it is the actual spelling in the actual title of the 16thC book being referred to. It has been corrected back to its original form. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.94.45.243 (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thankyou for drawing my attention to this and for fixing my mistake. Gaius Cornelius 10:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British invasion defences[edit]

Doh, sorry about that. Thanks for correcting it. RHB 17:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long time no see[edit]

We nearly ran into each other on East Rochester. It's good to see you're still having fun. I recently turned over the odometer, 10,000 edits. Happy editing! Chris the speller 19:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Yes I am still plugging away, kinda alternating between AWB edits sometimes with rather exotic regex searches and writing proper articles. How does one know how many edits one has made? Is there a counter somewhere? Gaius Cornelius 19:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just fixing my old sig when I saw this question. Just in case you haven't found it yet, there is an edit counter here [5]. Garion96 (talk) 02:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, as of the November 5 database dump, you have recorded 45150 edits (44th-ranked user all-time, non-bot). See here. Not to be rude, but is there a reason you aren't an admin yet? If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Date formatting errors with AWB.[edit]

In this edit you changed spelling and date formatting with AWB. The spelling correction was correct and is much appreciated, but the date formatting change was not correct. The value passed to the accessdate param of Template:Cite_web shouldn't be wikilinked. I've fixed the problem, but I wanted you to know about this for the future. Thanks again for your contributions! --Craig Stuntz 14:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have some fairly complex regex expressions for wikifying dates, these are designed to wikify dates UNLESS they apprear in a reference and certain other instances. Generally, this has worked well. I have not explicitly excluded wikification of dates inside citation templates because they should be in YYYY-MM-DD format and therefore simply not picked up by my AWB regex expressions. You have shown me that there are some exceptions so I'll be more careful and consider some more general solution. Thanks for bringing this to my attention Gaius Cornelius 15:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

this change and all the changes on Joseph Smith, Jr. and polygamy yesterday changed the accessdate incorrectly. As you mention above the dates should by wikilinked to ISO format YYYY-MM-DD format. Someone has put them in M_Name DD, YYYY but the fix is just not working. --Trödel 02:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trödel: Thanks for point this out. In the cite web template, accessmonthday plus accessyear is an alternative to accessdate. I assumed that this was also the case for the cite news template - but it is not. Thanks again Gaius Cornelius 02:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could help --Trödel 07:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship[edit]

Well, I don't know, it really is up to you. You should maybe read the lead section of Wikipedia:Administrators and the "Powers" section to see if these additional powers would help you here on Wikipedia. Then again, I don't know if the added powers might have a negative impact on the amount of typos you fix per day.

The reason I asked you about adminship is because (typically) those with high edit counts are administrators — yet other users decline the idea, lest the community lose their contributions to Wikipedia on a daily basis (which may or may not be your case). Each user reads into adminship differently.

I may have answered your question, but perhaps I haven't. Please let me know if I can be of any help. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 23:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Date format[edit]

When you correct dates, could you make sure that you also wikify them? (That is: 27 June 1950.) Thanks. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recently I have mostly been dealing with dates within citation templates. I am inclined not to wikify these as the effect tends to end up looking cluttered. I did wikify them at one points, but an editor complained and frankly, I think he was right. As for the wikification of other dates: I do do a lot of this, but I don't generally wikify the year. As I understand it, there is not currently consensus in favour of wikification of naked year numbers - personally I think it would be a good idea to wikify them if only on the grounds of esthetics. Compare:

1 January 2007
1 January 2007
1 January 2007

The middle example just does not look right. However, as far as I know, there is no consensus. Gaius Cornelius 16:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your accessdate fixing, could you modify your script so that it respects the actual format? If an article is using the "month day" format, you should convert it respecting the format, not arbitrarily changing to "day month". Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 17:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ReyBrujo: That is a bit of a complicating factor, but I am working on it. Gaius Cornelius 17:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I noticed in articles like Ami Mizuno. The important thing is not changing it to another way, because the article may have its reasons (regional topic, consistence with other dates in the article, etc). -- ReyBrujo 17:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ReyBrujo: Good point. It does complicate things because there are a number of following regexes that handle rare problems - these all now need to have two forms. Ah well... Gaius Cornelius

The only date format of the three that is in accordance with the Wikipedia MoS is the third. The first and the second approaches mean that readers' preferences are broken. There is no room for individual taste, or article-specific approaches.

[[1 May]] [[2007]] = 1 May 2007
[[May 1]] [[2007]] = May 1 2007
[[2007]] [[May 1]] = 2007 May 1

I see them all as "1 May 2007"; other readers see them differently, but still consistently; by not linking all or part of the date, you break this.

You mentioned naked year numbers; the guideline is to wikify those only if the link is significant to the article; for the vast majority of dates, of course, that won't be the case. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, are years that are not "significant to the article" always to be left unwikified or should they be wikified in the particular case of appearing as part of day-month-year date as in [[1 January]] [[2007]]. I am a little confused. Gaius Cornelius 14:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took it that by "naked year numbers" you meant just the year. The policy is that, when it's just a year, then it's like any other term: it should only be linked if there's some good reason to do so. When it's a full date (day, month, and year) then it should always be linked (as should day and month), in order for the Wikipedia preferences to work. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks for clearing that up. That is what I will do from now on. Gaius Cornelius 14:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cat&curid=6678&diff=98275902&oldid=98274504[edit]

Please state what you are ding in the summary, not only a minor part of it. _→AzaToth 22:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AWD edits to reference formatting[edit]

Please stop making these edits to the formatting of references. For one thing, such tiny edits are discouraged on account of server load, and for another, you must already be aware that we have a difference of opinion on this matter. It would be more prudent to discuss the matter before making sweeping changes in a field you know to be controversial. --Stemonitis 00:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I generally use AWB with many of the correction options turned on. Of course, it still turns out that sometimes only a small number of changes are made by AWB - but by then it has done a large fraction of the work it is ever going to do and choosing to ignore the update won't make much difference. Is there any real evidence that server load is a problem? Why must I be aware of a difference of opinion and why are you reverting changes that are entirely consistent with the MOS? Gaius Cornelius 00:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry; I was confusing you with someone else. I have discussed this topic before, and I thought it was with you, but that's obviously not the case, so please accept my apologies for that. If I hadn't thought I'd discussed this before, I probably wouldn't have said anything. I was just a bit annoyed at having my conscious choice of formatting undone, apparently merely to better conform to some general guideline.

There are differing styles for citing references, and there will probably never be a site-wide standard, given the different standards in use in different fields outside Wikipedia (scientists use a different methods from historians, and so on). WP:CN states "Follow the system used for an article's existing citations. Do not change formats without checking for objections on the talk page. If there is no agreement, prefer the style used by the first major contributor." WP:AWB contains a couple of sentences about server load and insignificant edits: "Avoid making insignificant minor edits such as only adding or removing some white space, moving a stub tag, converting some HTML to Unicode, removing underscores from links (unless they are bad links), or something equally trivial. This is because it wastes resources and clogs up watch lists." --Stemonitis 00:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find the quote you give on WP:CN, but I have certainly read something similar elsewhere. However, this "Follow the system used for an article's existing citations" surely refers to fundemental changes such as Harvard or non-Harvard citations, not minor tidying up of wikipedia footnotes. As for the changes I have made, which presumably you find objectionable, moving a footnote to directly after the punctuation is what the MOS requires. See: WP:FOOT. Non-breaking spaces are not helpful except perhaps in tables (where I have left them alone). Non-breaking spaces before references are completely non-standard in wikipedia, based on the 30-Nov-06 database dump there are just over 100 such articles and 20 or so of those only used them in tables.

The significance of the comment on WP:AWB is that the changes it lists make no difference to the appearance of an article; there is no suggestion that an article should not be improved if it can be. When working with AWB, I generally have many of the standard routine fixes turned on, so that many articles will have several small fixes in one edit; inevitably this does not always happen. However, by the time AWB has done its work and I am manually checking its edits, it makes no sense to decline a perfectly good edit because AWB - and therefore the servers - has already done a substantial proportion of the necessary effort. Declining the update will both waste the work already completed and leave the article to be read by AWB at a later date by myself or another editor resulting in more server load, not less. Gaius Cornelius 01:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Requires" is too strong a word. WP:MOS, like all style manuals, is only a guideline and is not set in stone. Exceptions can and should be made. The spaces may be unusual, but having references before punctuation is much less so (even after many AWB sweeps by various people). I do accept your point about AWB and minor edits. The only solution I can see is always to study each article in greater depth (starting with the AWB suggestions), but few people have the time and the inclination to do that. I usually leave such things until I'm changing an article for some other reason anyway, but everyone's editing style is different. --Stemonitis 01:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish your articles to be an exception to the MOS then feel free to revert my edits. I think that, for the sake of the reader, consistency of style in Wikipedia articles is a worthwhile goal and I don't really understand why you want to be an exception on this minor point. I hope that you will accept that my edits were in good faith, consistent with the manual of style and, I might add, universally in agreement with the custom and practice seen in all the featured articles I can remember looking at. It is true that one sometimes sees references before punctuation, but in my experience this is most usually in articles where there is a mixture of "styles". Something that is very common, see here for example. Gaius Cornelius 12:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English vs. english[edit]

Hi Gaius Cornelius! I see you were cleaning up lots of articles which had English in lowercase. Just wanted to bring to your attention the use of the word in pool and billiards related articles. In the pool and billiards world, english is not a proper noun, but a technical term referring to sidespin placed on a ball and should not be capitalized. To illustrate by analogy, "the French call french fries pomme frites." Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you message. My dictionary says that English is often not capitalised when used in the sense to which you refer. Have I inadvertantly made any such changes? Gaius Cornelius 08:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to one article on my watchlist. I used to do a lot of typo cleanup and these types of errors do ocassionally get made:-)--Fuhghettaboutit 15:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes. Thanks for pointing that out, for fixing it, and for being so understanding... Gaius Cornelius 15:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cite web changes[edit]

Please don't change accessdate to accessmonthday as it breaks the date hyperlinking in the references. (I have reverted you on SimCity 4)-Localzuk^(talk) 16:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the change is that Template:Cite web is quite clear that accessdate should be used with a "YYYY-MM-DD" format and that accessmonthday and accessyear should be used otherwise. Gaius Cornelius 16:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't correct spelling/grammar in direct quotes[edit]

You have changed some archaic / non-standard spellings in direct quotes from sources on Fitz Hugh Ludlow using your automagic robot thingie. Please don't. Quotes from sources should typically appear on wikipedia as they appear in the source being quoted. -Moorlock 17:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Sorry, I do try to be careful. Gaius Cornelius 12:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Error in Vertex cover problem[edit]

Hi, i'm writing you because you are the last editor of Vertex cover problem. I think the included image of 3-SAT reduction is worng because the first clause contains only 2 literals (in 3-SAT every clause MUST ocontain exatly 3 literals). Please verify.

I was the last editor, but I was only fixing a minor typo. Sorry, but I don't even understand you question - you somebody with more expertise on this subject. Gaius Cornelius 12:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The Real World: San Francisco[edit]

Hi. It seems we have a possible edit war on the The Real World: San Francisco article. If you could respond to the post I made on its talk page, it would be appreciated. Nightscream 05:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have left my comments on the talk page. Gaius Cornelius 12:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing to merge List of basic classics topics to Classics[edit]

Seeking concensus on proposed merger at Talk:Classics. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 02:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will look into this. Gaius Cornelius 12:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AWB Bug: Find & Replace: Normal: saving state of tickboxes - Fixed[edit]

Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs/Archive#Find_.26_Replace:_Normal:_saving_state_of_tickboxes has been fixed in SVN Rev 606

Reedy Boy 13:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Gaius Cornelius 15:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:New Ways Of War2.JPG[edit]

Hello Gaius Cornelius, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:New Ways Of War2.JPG) was found at the following location: User:Gaius Cornelius. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 02:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Picture Post 21-Sep-40.jpg[edit]

Hello Gaius Cornelius, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Picture Post 21-Sep-40.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Gaius Cornelius. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 04:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pillboxes by Henry Wills.jpg[edit]

Hello Gaius Cornelius, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Pillboxes by Henry Wills.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Gaius Cornelius. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 04:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British anti-invasion preparations of World War II[edit]

Do we really need to know that X book is the official book of the Pillbox study group on the hardened defences page? Looking at the article though, apart from a need for prose copyediting and a trimming of ext links, its fairly close to FA. Id be willing to help you get it there? RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 21:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it really it the official handbook - it says so on the front cover - and the author is heavily involved with the PSG. The recent anonymous edits were made by the owner of the PSG web-site following a somewhat animated discussion on PSGs own web-site initiated by some seriously inaccurate misinformation he had received. Clarifications have been made and ruffled feathers smoothed.

Nearly a featured article! Well, I would certainly welcome your help. I take it you are actually referring to the British anti-invasion preparations of World War II article rather than its little sibling on hardened field fortifications. What do I need to do? Gaius Cornelius 22:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must've confused myself. I was referring to British anti-invasion preparations of World War II. I'll add a to do list to the talk page and will do my best to assist. Thanks for clarification, RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 23:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think some editors will be concerned that a decent number of references come from places like geocities/free hosted websites etc - doesn't the IWM or London Gazette have these published - stuff like invasion warnings from the PM and what to do if this happens? People's War too - to what extent was each story verified, or was everything published? And can the external links section be trimmed down a bit, with some moved to the hardened defences article? They're a bit pillbox centric. RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 22:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your very welcome edits and your comments as above. Not all the foot notes are intended to be references, some are just interesting. Are many of those web-sites geocities/free hosted? How do you tell? Anyway, those web-sites are generally just a convenient way to access material that is available by other, much more awkward means - the "If the Invader Comes" leaflet for example. I don't know about the London Gazette, but the IWM tends to be pretty guarded about its material, little is on-line and you would have to visit the reading room. Similarly with the National Archive. There is quite a bit of original material I could reference, bit it is hard for anybody to check because it has not necessarily been widely published.

There is a particular dearth of published information on the activities of the Petroleum Warfare Department's activities. This is a special interest of mine, but more details would be original research. I could back-up the references to on-line eye-witness acounts with references to original documents. I am not clear to what extent this would be welcome.

You are quite right about the external links. I will indeed trim them down.

Gaius Cornelius 22:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did some minor copyediting today, most of the article, and I've asked for a proper copyedit at the league of copyeditors. Let me know what you think. RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 23:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edits are great. Thank you for your contributions thus far. I still have a few ideas for some minor alterations, but otherwise it is pretty much as good as I can make it on my own. The most significant problem is that the prose style is rather flat. Gaius Cornelius 16:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about putting it up for FAC? RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 22:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still have a little work to do, so not just yet. Maybe in a few weeks. Gaius Cornelius 13:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have the league of copyeditors looked at the article yet? Otherwise, I think that the article is about as ready as it is every going to be! Gaius Cornelius 15:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dont think so, I posted it there but it was removed, probably because it wasnt at FAC. I'd go ahead and post it, and see whether copy editing turns out to be an objection. RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 18:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. Gaius Cornelius 18:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Krypton Edits[edit]

Can you explain some of your redits on the Krypton article? It was always my understanding that the first instances of yesr listings are wiki-linked. I am also a bit concerned by some of your other edits. Can you perhaps give me an idea what was guiding them? I don't want to simply revert your edit withour first hearing what you were thinking...Arcayne 22:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to dates, that is partial dates that only specify the year, I am trying to follow the WP:DATE and WP:CONTEXT guidance. I don't remember the advice ever being that the first mention of a year should be linked, but rather it was my recollection that bare years should not be linked unless the context was a really key event in that year - which is almost never the case. Looking again I see that the advice is more equivocal. However, I would share the opinion of many that while full dates should be linked in order to service user preferences, partial dates such as years should not be linked because they do not change with user preferences, distract from readability and generally add little or nothing of value to the reader. I have only been experimenting with unlinking years very recently, but I have seen other editors doing the same routinely. Of course, feel free to revert as you see fit. Gaius Cornelius 22:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't spell check url's[edit]

As said, :) [6] Ansell 03:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I really do try to be careful and check such edits. I must have checked this one because the corrected URL does work and matches the spelling on the target web page. The old, incorrect spelling also works. Please put the fix back just as soon as you have satisfied yourself that this is the case. Gaius Cornelius 13:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on Independence High School (San Jose, California)[edit]

Thank you very much for your spellcheck on the aforementioned article. We've been getting more than a few vandals lately, so it's good to see someone who does not feel the need to go that path. I'm glad you've taken the time to help us out.

Thanks again, Ryoji.kun 04:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your signalling your appreciation. By the way, you have a link to football in the article and I was wondering whether you meant American football? Gaius Cornelius 10:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mendip Hills FAC[edit]

Thanks for your edits of Mendip Hills. I have now put it up as a Featured Article Candidate & comments, support or opposition is being recorded at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mendip Hills.— Rod ^talk 10:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of Cyanne[edit]

Please feel free to use AWB or anything else on what I write. The 2 sections below are copies from the national archive of the United States of America. They do indeed contain spelling errors and have been transcribed that way. It was not seen as fitting to change the historic nature of the document. In both cases they were done at that time as well and some spelling conventions have changed since then.

Nothing I write is beyond editing by all means help yourself. I'd ask that the Captains letters reporting the actions be left as they are. Tirronan 02:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Sorry. Gaius Cornelius 19:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Percy Jackson[edit]

Thank you for your three spelling corrections in the Mary Percy Jackson article; I have reverted the remaining of your changes. Whilst I appreciate that some people choose to use AWB to make their updates, please check the results afterwards!

The careful formatting on a type-written letter received from The Queen Mother was damaged. (I note that this is very similar to the previous comment about altering original evidence). I have added additional  to show that the letter should not be altered.
I have reverted and restored the original [correct] typographical formatting surrounding Endashes and Emdashes—could I ask you to read these two articles regarding their correct usage. (It is improper to insert white-space around either emdashes, or endashes—the correct form being: 1–2).

Once again, thank you for the enthusiasm shown with your commits. Sladen 23:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing my mistake. The damage was done by an automated feature of AWB which amongst other things is evidently not respecting existing used of n and m-dashes, I will mention this on the AWB discussion page. The formatting in the article is unusual and I am sorry that I did not recognise it for what it was. I have previously suggested that there should be some sort of no auto edit marker available in Wikipedia that bots and other editors to optionally honour, but so far this has not happened. Gaius Cornelius 23:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New AWB feature added today: Template:Bots! Gaius Cornelius 09:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic! I just saw the edit go through. Thanks for sorting this out and taking the effort to fix the page. Does AWB need listing on Category:Exclusion_compliant_bots? Sladen 18:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess a bit of nagging paid off at last. I cannot really take too much credit though. I am not quite sure what the Category:Exclusion_compliant_bots is for. Gaius Cornelius 16:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You![edit]

		The TomStar81 Spelling Award
		Be it known to all members of Wikipedia that Gaius Cornelius has corrected my god-awful spelling on the page State Military characters of the Fullmetal Alchemist manga, and in doing so has made an important and very significant contribution to the Wikipedia community, thereby earning this TomStar81 Spelling Award and my deepest thanks. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 09:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your expression of appreciation. Really, the Fullmetal Alchemist was not so bad - mistakes that are hard to see by eye may be picked up by an automated tool, I have found many mistakes in my own articles. Gaius Cornelius 10:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barbarians at the Gate[edit]

Good luck on the d-fens spelling war! Luis F. Gonzalez 01:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sling article, "David gegen Goliath.jpg" image[edit]

Gaius, I am curious why you reverted my edit. I will go ahead and explain what happened, since I'm starting the discussion, and you can let me know if I did something wrong.

Up until recently, the article on the sling included a photograph taken of a detail in a tapestry, depicting David facing Goliath. Today, I noticed that image was missing (the caption was still in place). The image was "David_gegen_Goliath.jpg", and I started looking to see what happened. This image had been removed from the English wikipedia, but is still at the German wikipedia, where it is linked to from the article on Goliath (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goliath_%28Bibel%29). It appears that someone updated the image, because its filename is now "David_gegen_goliath2.jpg" (note "Goliath" is not capitalized, and a "2" is appended). The German image is clearly marked as public domain ("gemeinfrei" auf deutsch), as is the copy of it stored in Wikimedia Commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:David_gegen_goliath2.jpg).

It seems odd that you would revert a working link, back to a broken link. I must presume that, being still fairly new to Wikipedia, I did something that I should not have done. Was, perhaps, the proper course to copy the revised image (David_gegen_goliath2.jpg) back into Wikimedia Commons under the old name (David_gegen_Goliath.jpg)? But then, somebody removed it from Wikimedia Commons, and I must presume that person had a reason. However, I have no idea how to retrieve a deleted image, and so cannot research the matter.

Awaiting your reply... — SWWright^Talk 00:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How very mysterious? When I look at the sling article, the original image (David gegen Goliath.jpg) appears just fine now as it has done in the past. That picture, which is actually traceable back to Wikimedia Commons here has been in the article for some time. Perhaps there is some sort of server issue? What do you see in the article now?

The image you substituted is this one here which is totally different and rather inferior for the purposes of the article. Also, your edit comment was Fix broken image link, which conventionally means to repair a link without changing content, but as far as I could tell the image was replaced - albeit by one with a similar name. Gaius Cornelius 00:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image "David_gegen_Goliath.jpg" which you provided a link to, above, is gone. The information page is still there, but the image itself is not (I clicked you link, which led to the info page; but typing "Image:David_gegen_Goliath.jpg" in the search box, with underscores or spaces, "caps or no caps, leads only to a "not found" message). Also, in the German article on Goliath, I noticed that the old link to this picture is still there, but only the caption appears (the picture itself is gone). I am guessing that you have the old image cached, and I do not have it cached. — SWWright^Talk 14:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curiouser and Curiouser. For me, everything in the article looks absolutely normal; I can see the image with no problems just as it always has been. And I can see the images in Wikimedia Commons too. It must be that there is some kind of server or incompatibility problem. I am in the UK and using Microsoft explorer? Gaius Cornelius 15:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...said Alice. OK, other side of the pond, on the Left Coast. I use Firefox, but I tried it in Micro$oft Internet Exploder and got the same results: David_gegen_Goliath.jpg is not there anymore. I clicked your link, and it took me to "Image:David gegen Goliath.jpg" on Wikimedia Commons. But at the top of the page it said "No higher resolution available" but there was no image thereabove. The source of the image is listed as http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:David_gegen_Goliath.JPG but when I click that link I get a page that says "Eine Datei mit diesem Namen existiert nicht oder nicht mehr, du kannst sie jedoch hochladen. Gegebenenfalls findest du in den Lösch-Logbüchern der Wikipedia oder von Commons weitere Informationen zur Löschung." My German is poor, but sufficient to recognize that the image does not exist (or no longer exists). I have not time to investigate it now, but later today (tonight for you) I will see what I can find out; or perhaps it is a server issue and time will resolve it. Thanks for talking with me about this! — SWWright^Talk 16:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The old image, David gegen Goliath.jpg, is still gone (even though I purged the image cache in my browser, and purged the Wikipedia cache by appending "?action=purge" to the URL for the image). I must presume that it really is gone, though for what reason I know not. The David gegen goliath2.jpg image is poor quality, but (I believe) depicts the same scene as the missing image.

There are two possibilities for replacing it, aside from the choice I originally made. In the 13th century, the Maciejowski Bible was produced in France for Louis IX, with many illustrations. One plate depicts David facing Goliath, and is similar to the missing image, though Goliath has his shield on his back (it was actually held by a shield-bearer).

http://www.medievaltymes.com/courtyard/images/maciejowski/leaf28/otm28va&b.gif

We would probably have to get permission from the folks who have this image.

The other possibility is to use Osmar Schindler's painting, which is historically much more accurate, though Schindler took the liberty of putting a group of laughing Philistines in proximity to Goliath; actually, they remained up the hill while Goliath and his shield-bearer came down into the valley to deliver the daily challenge. This image is already at the Commons.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Osmar_Schindler_David_und_Goliath.jpg

Of course, if you can still see the old image, and I cannot, perhaps we need to bring the matter to someone's attention who can find out what is really going on...

— SWWright^Talk 07:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gaius, have you a particular interest in the article about slings? Or were you just watching for potential vandalism? I have not fixed that still-broken picture link because I have not heard back from you concerning whether purging the server cache (which you will do if you click this link), and/or purging your browser cache, causes the image to disappear from your PC, nor about whether my proposed replacements are acceptable. Perhaps I should just be bold and wait for you to unembolden me again... <grin>

As a side note, the image "David gegen Goliath.jpg" was apparently contributed to the Commons by someone named Mattes, and his gallery (page 13) shows that picture to be missing also; the new version "David gegen goliath2.jpg" is just to the right of the empty frame. Perhaps one of us should ask him what happened to that image. — SWWright^Talk 20:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, one last comment from someone who you are probably starting to regard as obsessive... I finally found a thumbnail version of David gegen Goliath.jpg, by doing a search on Wikimedia Commons for all images uploaded by Mattes (a.k.a. User:Scriberius on the English Wikipedia). That page was found by this tool:

http://tools.wikimedia.de/~daniel/WikiSense/Gallery.php?wikifam=commons.wikimedia.org&wikilang=en&order=-img_timestamp&img_user_text=Mattes&max=250&ofs=1250&max=250

To my embarrassment, the image is quite different from David gegen goliath2.jpg, and my memory is demonstrated to be quite faulty. It appears that the image was removed from the Commons for lack of a license tag. There is another (low quality) copy of that image in the Wikipedia, called Image:DavidAndGoliath.jpg. Nothing currently links to it.

— SWWright^Talk 10:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a special interest in the sling article: I rewrote the article and 90% or so of the text is mine. You are quite right to wish to get the bottom of this issue and it does all seem very strange to me.

Despite having tried all the purging etc that I can think of, the sling article looks perfectly OK to me. I can see Image:David gegen Goliath.jpg and Image:DavidAndGoliath.jpg on the english Wikipedia and the only difference I can discern is that Image:David gegen Goliath.jpg originates on and has a link to Wikimedia Commons - where I can also see it just fine.

I am trying to arrange to look at this on an independent PC where there is no history of looking at the article/images.

Gaius Cornelius 12:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is getting strange. It looks like there is something wrong with my PC. I just asked my wife to go to Wikipedia and look at the article about slings (she's never looked at Wikipedia before, as far as I know). She can see the image. It looks like about the same quality as Image:DavidAndGoliath.jpg which is hosted at Wikipedia but NOT at the Commons. Scriberius, who uploaded the David gegen Goliath.jpg image, asserts that it is still there. You can see it. My wife can see it. It has to be something about my PC. But what? I cannot see the image in the sling article, in the Image page, in the Commons, in Scriberius's gallery, anywhere. Not from Firefox, not from Micro$oft Internet Exploder.

I think my next step is going to be save the image on a flash stick, from my wife's PC, and see if I can open THAT on my PC. I'm not taking any bets, either way... — SWWright^Talk 05:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the end of the matter. I looked up the Sling article on my PC at work. I downloaded the picture (which I could see) onto a flash stick. I opened it on my PC, and I could see it. But I still cannot see the image in the Sling article, on the Commons, anywhere except by opening the copied image on the stick. But I am convinced that the image IS there, my replacing it with something different was a mistake, and my PC has something mysterious wrong with it. So I'm leaving it at that. Thanks for reverting my change, and for listening patiently while I stumbled around trying to figure out what was going on. — SWWright^Talk 19:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to hear that you are getting to the bottom of the problem. Whatever the root cause is, I hope that it is not too serious for you. I have never before heard of anything quite like this. To look on the positive side, I guess it is good that there does not appear to be anything the matter with the Wiki servers etc. Gaius Cornelius 21:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainable design[edit]

Please be careful with that AWB and your indefinite article fixing, as per Sustainable design.--Jrsnbarn 11:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you mean that "a Ecodesign" should have been corrected to "as Ecodesign" rather than "an Ecodesign". I see that you are quite right of course. Gaius Cornelius 11:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

Thanks for better organizing and cleaning up Chateauguay Valley Regional. Sirtrebuchet 21:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome of course, though my contribution was modest. Gaius Cornelius 22:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Foster[edit]

I noticed you added some unsourced information to the article on Cody Foster. If the information is true, it would be very nice to have in the article, but it would need to be sourced. -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 01:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed "a American" to "an American" which should not be too controversial. Perhaps you are thinking of some other editor's contribution? Gaius Cornelius 07:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Westbrook[edit]

I see that you have changed the spelling of "Chanson Irresponsable" to "Chanson Irresponsible". This is incorrect as "Irresponsable" is the correct spelling for this work as can be seen on http://www.westbrookjazz.co.uk/mikewestbrook/chansoncd.shtml

I have amended this on the Mike Westbrook page.

Regards Chris53 08.22 16/04/2007 (UTC)

You have my apologies for the mistake and my thanks for fixing it. Gaius Cornelius 08:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: British anti-invasion preparations of World War II[edit]

Thank you for this notification. --Nick Dowling 09:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help and for supporting the nomination.

Thanks from me too! It's got my support as well. njan 12:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added image of remains of anti-tank scaffold to article, if its not in keeping with the excellent article then please remove Palmiped 22:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Palmiped: The photograph is interesting, but my feeling is that to appreciate it you really need to understand what it is that is being shown and there is a very real danger that it will cause more confusion that it resolves. Gaius Cornelius 12:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC). Yes thinking about it I agree. Palmiped 18:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on the article passing the FA nomination - it's well deserved. --Nick Dowling 06:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review[edit]

An article that you had shown interest in the past has been tagged to be peer reviewed. Your input will be appreciatedRaveenS

Muchos Gracias RaveenS 14:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British anti-invasion preparations of World War II[edit]

		The Original Barnstar
		Here is a barnstar for Gaius Cornelius who has put in a lot into British anti-invasion preparations of World War II, one of wikipedia's most engaging and brilliant articles. Zleitzen^(talk) 00:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thanks. Gaius Cornelius 06:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded, excellent work. How about British hardened field defences of World War II as your second? :) RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 16:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I am quite pleased with British hardened field defences of World War II, but I am not sure it will ever be compelling enough for a featured article. Good Article status perhaps? Gaius Cornelius 17:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

And thirded, well done for all your hard work. Bob talk 17:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ref. 1940 defences - Well done! (RJP 17:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Periodic acid-Schiff[edit]

Hello! I am wondering why you removed the formula for PAS Staining for glycogen under the subject PAS Stain. I see a copyright notation but I can assure you, it is not a protected formula and is owned by no one! I am the son of the doctor who discovered that formula and I can vouch for its public domain position. As Jonas Salk said "It belongs to the world" and that is the way my father felt.

It is not the formula, but the text that is the problem. The text that was removed was copied (or appears to have been copied) from here. As it says when one edits a Wikipedia page Do not copy text from other websites wihout permission. It will be deleted. If permission has been obtained or it turns out that the other website copied Wikipedia then that needs to be made clear. Otherwise, articles need to be written in the author's own words. Gaius Cornelius 06:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your speedy answer! The formula for PAS staining is very exact, as all such procedures must be, and so wherever you see that formula.... it will be the same. I happened to copy my father's formula from his monograph on staining and the kidney, which I see credited at the site you referred me to. So, I would hope it would be obvious that my posting infringed on no one's rights. Unfortunately my father died in 1980 and so "in his own words" is not possible. Thank you.

IANAL: I guess it all depends upon the source and copyright status of the original text that you put into Wikipedia. If it is rightfully in the public domain then it is OK, otherwise I think there might be a problem. I can only refer you to Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. Gaius Cornelius 17:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mid Day Meals[edit]

I think the Mid Day Meals should redirect to Mid Day Meals Scheme and Not Lunch. "Mid Day Meals" in India is not equivalent to Lunch. Though you may be technically correct, I am afraid that your edit does not reflect the truth Doctor Bruno 11:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is worldwide, that "Mid Day Meals" means something specific in India is rather beside the point; "truth" is not a local phenomenon. If an editor of another article innocently linked to "[[Mid Day Meals]]" he would hardly expect it to take the reader to a meals scheme in India. I have endeavoured to ensure that all existing links that went through that redirect have been fixed to take the reader directly to the Mid-day Meal Scheme article, in the process I regularised some of the links and even added a couple of new ones. I am confident that the changes I made in this regard are entirely in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. If you have found anything that I have missed, please accept my apologies and my injunction to fix them. Gaius Cornelius 11:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ref tags[edit]

_ _ I know what an ext lk does inside & outside a cmt, but not the potential consequences (inside or outside cmt) of the ref tags you AWB'd in, in the edit i have partially rev'd. If you can refer me to a cogent explanation of the mechanism & its impact, i'll learn whether i'd be responsible to ignore future edits with that effect, even tho i assume they serve no purpose. Tnx.
_ _ Oh! I hope it isn't typical of your work, that you were too hasty on the Levy LoPbN page: my edit fixed the format, and rightly reduced the information to the terseness that dominates the page and its nearly a thousand tree-mates, and you threw those babies out with what you took for bathwater. On the other hand, it would be too high a standard of care to fault you for your error in objecting to the ambiguity of "Canadian soldier"; you are in fact wrong, but you may well have exercised due diligence in that. In any case, "Canadian-born soldier" will be harmless, and should satisfy you.
--Jerzy•t 22:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There you are: i've done the same thing; i failed to fix the piping of the lk; that part of the bad stuff you left behind is an error i also tolerated. Sorry, to that extent.
--Jerzy•t 22:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AWB has become strangely agressive in its treatment of external links - determined to turn them into footnotes wherever it can. This is a recently added standard feature of AWB with no option to turn it off. I think we were better off without it and I will mention this on the AWB page. "Canadian-born soldier" is just fine; I thought it needed to be clear that he was not a soldier in the Canadian army. Gaius Cornelius 12:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tnx. I see yr argument, and i'm glad that in this case there's a non-misleading way of responding.
--Jerzy•t 01:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edits to Smoking pipe (tobacco)[edit]

What were you trying to do with those ref tags you recently put in Smoking pipe (tobacco)? Whatever it was, it didn't work. Frotz 01:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted. If you don't like the result, feel free to revert. Gaius Cornelius 20:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fishing Portal[edit]

Hello!

I saw your active participation and contribution to the Fishing article. After initiating the successful relaunching of this project, another good news has happened. Our very own Fishing Portal is now up and running! Please find time to visit our portal and contribute furher. Thanks and good luck to us all. Bu b0y2007 07:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fishing revisions[edit]

First of all, I would like to thank you for actively guarding our Fishing Project. I've seen all your efforts of protecting the Fishing article from those harmful vandals. I've made a major revision from all those revisions/reverts that were made previously by bots and other wikipedians because some of the important information there were lost despite the effort of each and everyone to guard the said article. Thanks and more power! Bu b0y2007 01:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chew Stoke FAC[edit]

Hi, I've recently put Chew Stoke up as a Featured Article candidate. As you have edited this article in the past I wondered if you would like to make any comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chew Stoke?— Rod ^talk 07:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look. Gaius Cornelius 08:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request for your help with my research[edit]

Dear Gaius Cornelius

My name is Jim Sutton and I'm undertaking research in the School of Library, Archive, and Information Studies, UCL.

My research involves studying wiki usage, the reasons why individuals use wikis and the benefits/disadvantages of using wikis to manage knowledge.

I noticed a contribution of yours to the article on wikis and I was wondering if you would agree to my analysing your contributions to Wikipedia. This will basically involve calculating how many times you've contributed to Wikipedia within the time period of a week.

I was also wondering what your reasons are for using/contributing to Wikipedia. I'd be extremely grateful for any feedback you can provide.

If you agree to my analysing your contributions and can provide any feedback as to why you contribute to Wikipedia I’d be very grateful. My email address is james.sutton (at) ucl.ac.uk and can be emailed at this address if you agree and have any feedback or questions.

I also have a survey online which I'm using as part of my research at:

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/stqa7937/survey/

My Wikipedia username is Sutton4019 and my research is being carried out jointly with Melissa Terras at UCL. Her email address is m.terras (at) ucl.ac.uk .

If you have any questions please let me know and thank you for your time. Thanks! --Sutton4019 09:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Government of New Jersey, you will be blocked from editing.

Lorica[edit]

Hello. I took away that disambiguation link on that page because no one really knows the true meaning of the word "Loriga". There are references to the town as "Lobriga" (in Lusitania) but not as "Lorica". It's an idea to be studied, not a fact, that "Loriga" (today) may have been "Lorica" once, to the Romans. But do what you want. Septrya

The edit you made was anonymous and without any explanation, such edits are very likely to be reverted unless they are really obviously correct. I suggest you put the comments above on the Lorica discussion page and then proceed from there. Gaius Cornelius 23:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I often get connected without being logged in. I made that based on what I know about the town and books that I own. I already left my comment on the discussion page for someone to read but didn't erase the link. Thank you for the answer. Septrya

AfD nomination of William A. Stein[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, William A. Stein, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William A. Stein. Thank you. -- mms 00:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

61 Cygni copyvios[edit]

Hi,

I wanted to make a suggestion about being cautious when merging material from a copyrighted web site onto wikipedia. Several of your edits of February 2, 2007 to the 61 Cygni article appear to have been copied directly from a SolStation web site, which has a "© 1998-2005 Sol Company. All Rights Reserved" tag at the bottom.

I've modified or removed the additions that were problematic, so it should no longer be an issue. Apart from that, than you for your contributions. — RJH (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken, my edits are here. I think you need to discuss with User:Maury Markowitz. Gaius Cornelius 22:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzle jug[edit]

Hi Gaius. I've merged the puzzle mug article into the more general Jug article in order to build up both articles as the Puzzle jug article hasn't grown and wasn't linked to many other articles. I'm now wondering about the Fuddling cup article. It is related, and I'm wondering if it should go into the main jug article, at least as a mention. But I'm not sure. What do you think? It hasn't grown much in two years and remains largely unlinked and unread - a period of wider exposure in a more mainstream article (where people could still find it by doing a search for Fuddling cup) might attract interest that would result in the sort of research and writing that would enable it to grow to the point where it could stand on its own. Regards. SilkTork 15:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate what you are trying to do, but I don't think this is the best move. By all means let there by a Puzzle Jug section in the Jug (container) article, but it should point to Puzzle Jug as the main article. My main reasoning is the the Puzzle Jug is primarily a puzzle, that it is in the form of a jug is pretty incidental - it is more closely related to the fuddling cup and other puzzles that it is to jugs generally. As such, the Puzzle Jug article belongs firmly in the puzzle category with all that entails.

Furthermore, there is a good deal more to be said about puzzle jugs and I would have thought that Puzzle Jugs were a very small part of the topic of jugs generally and consequently the inclusion of a large section on that topic in the Jug (container) article is disproprotionate.

Your further thoughts?

Gaius Cornelius 09:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two more things[edit]

Looking at your edits you seem to do a fair bit of anti-vandal work, and you also seem to be level headed and sensible. Have you thought about becoming an admin?. Second - your talk page in quite long. Had you thought about archiving it? Regards SilkTork 15:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment. Perhaps I should consider adminship, although I would not expect to be doing anything very different what I do anyway. You are right about the talk page, a tidy up is long overdue. Gaius Cornelius 15:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to nominate you. I've not yet nominated someone, so it would be good experience for me. However, before I do that I suggest you look at a few Wikipedia:Requests for adminship and take part in some to get an idea of what is involved. Regards. SilkTork 08:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits[edit]

Hi again Gaius. Your default setting for edits is "minor", even when doing more than correcting typos. Have a look at this: Help:Minor edit. Even though the bulk of your edits are "minor" there are a few that are not, and this might be challenged in a RfA . Regards SilkTork 12:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to think of most of my edits as being minor, but looking at Help:Minor edit I can see that the standard for minor is lower than I thought. Thanks for pointing this out. 11:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Notification of proposal: Guideline/policy governing lists[edit]

Dear editor:

Given your extensive experience here on Wikipedia, I would greatly appreciate your input on the following topic:

Wikipedia: Village pump (policy)#Proposal to make a policy or guideline for lists

Thank you in advance for any thoughts you may have on the topic.

Regards,

Sidatio 15:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation[edit]

Dear user, I noticed that you are interested to work on debating related articles. It would be really nice if you join us at WikiProject Debating. Formal invitation template will bring you to the project page. Niaz bd 06:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the invitation. I have taken a look and on reflection, I think the project is not for me. Sorry. Gaius Cornelius 10:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lindemann[edit]

Sorry - didn't realise you were editing Lindemann at the same time - just noticed. Cutler 22:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I hope there has been no collision of edits that has caused you difficulties. Gaius Cornelius 23:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was mainly cleaning up fmt and putting in citations (I have used ODNB) and flagging missing ones. If you are working from the books then you have some complementary knowledge which is good. I have corrected father's nationality and flagged the Jewish thing. ODNB says father Catholic and mother (which I think is the important thing here) Protestant. I was inspired to come back here because I found enough notable info on the father for a short article. I think we now have a good basis for getting this article to GA status. What happened to the image? I would have thought that it was no problem to add a fair use justification here. Cutler 23:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit: Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm[edit]

You recent edit to Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm was quite destructive. Please be careful in the future. Please reply here if there is a reason why you did what you did. You did catch a typo, thank you for this.

Cheers. Skippydo 12:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AWB seems to be playing up. I cannot imagine what it has against maths... Gaius Cornelius 14:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Please fix simple errors in articles[edit]

Regarding this edit, if you see a simple error in an article like a word duplicated that shouldn't be, simply fix it. Don't put in a comment marking it as an error. That's pretty useless. I know you used AWB to make this edit, but AWB is not allowed to be used in an automated fashion for these kinds of fixes, so you are required to inspect each edit suggested by AWB and verify that it makes sense before committing it. In this context, marking a simple problem rather than fixing it does not make sense. Please take a more hands-on approach to using AWB and adjust your editing accordingly. --Cyde Weys 00:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was not intentional - please assume good faith. I use AWB to mark duplicates (among other things) and then use a search feature to check whether they are really mistakes or not. It is all pretty hands-on and I do try to be very careful, but this one got missed for some reason. Thank you for fixing it. Gaius Cornelius 08:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your AWB bug report[edit]

Thank you for your bug report. The problem has been fixed in the next release. You can use the following regex as a workaround until the new version is released:

\b(?<word>[a-z][a-z][a-z]*) \k<word>\b

Regards, Jogers (talk) 09:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Gaius Cornelius 11:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for marking the intentional doubled "to" . . .[edit]

. . . in the Dhalgren article. With so much automated editing, I foresaw this happening over and over. I didn't know there was a way to prevent it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdring (talk • contribs) 16:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. There is the Template:Bots which can be applied to keep bots away from an entire article. It is a great pity that it cannot be appied to individual sections of text. Bots are not obliged to honour a nobots indication, but AWB does. Most "automatic" editing is only semi-automatic in that changes are still to be checked by eye, it think you will find that putting in a comment will prevent most changes. Also, having a comment between the repeated words will discourage at least some text searches. Gaius Cornelius 18:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

auto can go wrong[edit]

Hi there, I reverted a mini glitch caused by your auto correction, take a look here - just wanted to let you know! Dan Pelleg 00:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Thank you for spotting and fixing that. Gaius Cornelius 08:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

request for comment on Hugh Hefner[edit]

Please take the time to go to Hugh Hefner's talkpage [7] and respond to the request for comment on what jerrygraf is trying to add that does not belong on Hugh Hefner's page, but belongs on PEI's, as well as the part I deleted is ment as a "controversial comment on the biography of a living person"Rogue Gremlin 04:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Comics editorial guidelines[edit]

Hiya. I've noticed what may be automated changes to some WikiProject Comics articles that go against the WPC editorial guidelines, which state that months in issue-date citations be abbreviated. Thankis for understanding the WPC community's consensus. --Tenebrae 04:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide a link to the relevant guide? Gaius Cornelius 09:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I would have done this sooner if you had notified me on my talk page.

Second, please see these examples at WikiProject Comics editorial guidelines (Aug. 1964; Oct. 1969). It's also this way throughout the WPC. --Tenebrae 05:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, replying to a comment on in the same place it was made is entirely normal practice. Although some people do things differently, the result is, to my mind, rather unsatisfactory. In any case, how am I supposed to know that you are one of these people. I am not psychic.

Second, the convention that you cite is itself inconsistent: both full and abbreviated month names are used with no indication of any preference. Even if a preference was expressed, it would be contary to the Wikipedia manual of style which clearly states a preference for full month names except where space is extreemly limited. See: WP:MOS.

Gaius Cornelius 19:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parenthetical references, several of which appear in each comics article, represent limited space; these aren't month references in the regular prose. For that reason, the WPC style is to have the long month-names abbreviated. At the links I provided, the vast majority of the parenthetical month references appear abbreviated; one or two obvious errors on that page do not nullify the policy.

Re "convention...is itself inconsistent": They are all abbreviated at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/editorial guidelines#Uniform cover artwork crediting convention. There was 'one erroneous example among the many at [Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/exemplars]].

The "I am not psychic" remark was unnecessary and uncalled-for. --Tenebrae 16:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see how parenthesis represent "limited space" and they certainly are not extreemly limited as required in WP:MOS. If individual projects are going to have styles that are contary the overall WP:MOS then we can never achive the very desirable goal of consistency as expressed in the very first paragraph of WP:MOS:

"The Manual of Style is a style guide for users that aims to make the encyclopedia easier to read. One way of presenting information is often just as good as another, but consistency promotes professionalism, simplicity and greater cohesion in Wikipedia articles."

I cannot see any good reason for the comics project to be perverse here. It should change; not wikipedia.

If you are still not convinced, I will simply try to avoid editing comic related articles and you should feel free to revert any of my edits you find objectionable. However, I dare say another editor will be along later, and you will have to go through the whole thing again.

There is an on-going discussion about project guidelines here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#WikiProject guidelines

Gaius Cornelius 12:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't mischaracterize, and please respect the practicality of WikiProject Comics guidelines. You personally do not consider captions and parenthetic attachments to issue dates limited space. We certainly do, and that's in keeping with Wikipedia style guidelines. I must say, your brusque tone, abruptness, and lack of respect for this well-established project is unbecoming. "Perverse"? Such hyperbole is not conducive to respectful, rational discussion.

Thank you, however, for offering to try to avoid comics-related articles.--Tenebrae 22:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fishing[edit]

Do you think it would be helpful to title the main Fishing page "Fishing (commercial)", and, perhaps, have "Angling" or "Fishing (recreational)" to avoid some of the inappropriate links? Howard C. Berkowitz 20:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point and I have had similar thoughts myslef in the past. The trouble is that the Fishing article is, as it should be, entirely generic: fishing has a long history and today is practiced for subsistence, commerce and recreation. I cannot think of a title better title for a truely generic article. Perhaps you should bring up your thoughts on the Fishing article talk page. Gaius Cornelius 22:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Java[edit]

The Captain's letters of action should not be wikified or edited, it is a digital transcription of an historic document that contains spelling errors and spelling conventions that are not correct today. The idea was to contain source material in the article not to wikify it or modify it which is why there is a header above that explaining exactly that. Tirronan 21:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Sorry. Gaius Cornelius 22:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Emperors of Japan/Japanese era name[edit]

Your robot wrecked havoc with 100+ articles about Japanese emperors and 200+ Japanese nengō articles. The robot was modestly described as merely removing redundant word-duplication; but it did more -- much more. The edit history shows that the result of wrongly wikifying a bibliographic note, you disabled the carefully-constructed click/link to a Google Books digitized version of a rare book. In short, you rendered a lot of work across a vast array of articles meaningless.

AFTER ROBOT RAMPAGE:

Titsingh, Isaac. (1834). [Siyun-sai Rin-siyo/Hayashi Gahō, 1652], Nipon o daï itsi ran; ou, Annales des empereurs du Japon, tr. par M. Isaac Titsingh avec l'aide de plusieurs interprètes attachés au comptoir hollandais de Nangasaki; ouvrage re., complété et cor. sur l'original japonais-chinois, accompagné de notes et précédé d'un Aperçu d'histoire mythologique du Japon, par M. J. Klaproth. Paris: Oriental Translation Fund of Great Britain and Ireland. --Two digitized examples of this rare book have now been made available online: (1) from the library of the University of Michigan, digitized January 30, 2007; and (2) from the library of Stanford University, digitized June 23, 2006. Click here to read the original text in French.

BEFORE ROBOT RAMPAGE:

Titsingh, Isaac. (1834). [Siyun-sai Rin-siyo/Hayashi Gahō, 1652], Nipon o daï itsi ran; ou, Annales des empereurs du Japon, tr. par M. Isaac Titsingh avec l'aide de plusieurs interprètes attachés au comptoir hollandais de Nangasaki; ouvrage re., complété et cor. sur l'original japonais-chinois, accompagné de notes et précédé d'un Aperçu d'histoire mythologique du Japon, par M. J. Klaproth. Paris: Oriental Translation Fund of Great Britain and Ireland. --Two digitized examples of this rare book have now been made available online: (1) from the library of the University of Michigan, digitized January 30, 2007; and (2) from the library of Stanford University, digitized June 23, 2006. Click here to read the original text in French.

I can modify the citations by re-writing each one; but this French translation of a primary source in Japanese history has metastasized across more articles than I can really remember.

In addition, the robot seems to have done something with the default sort template ... which somehow has consequences with the Japanese history stub tag. Again, I can ameliorate the harm you've caused. I'll re-visit each article and repair the damage.

But the pernicious effects of something which you did weeks ago were not obvious to me at the time.

Please explain to me how I could have/should have responded with more alacrity. --Ooperhoofd 22:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If something has gone wrong, I will go back and fix it. The problem will be somewhere in WP:AWB, which is not actually a robot as such. I don't think I have edited either List of Emperors of Japan or Japanese era name; are you refering to all instances of the "Titsingh, Isaac" citation?

The default sort template is an AWB feature that is usually well behaved. Can you show me an example of the problem to which you refer?

Gaius Cornelius 23:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now had a chance to review what actually happened. My edits did screw up a small number of "Titsingh, Isaac" citations on between 10 and 20 articles. I have been back to check them all. Most have already been fixed and I repaired those that remained. Gaius Cornelius 11:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continent change[edit]

Your AWB thingie moved a jpg to the bottom of the article in this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Continent&diff=168948425&oldid=168874103. Was it supposed to do that? It seems like an odd thing to do. Nurg 06:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have never seen this fault before, but it is clearly a misfiring of a WP:AWB rule that moves links to articles in other wikis to the end of the page. In fact, linking to the image in the manner given, while syntactically correct, does not require the language to be specified. The approved method of linking to an image would be as follows:

<ref>[[:Image:MapaAméricaJonghe.JPG|English map of 1770 by Jonghe]]</ref>

See: Wikipedia:Picture tutorial#Linking to pictures without displaying them

Linking in this fashion should prevent further problems with WP:AWB.

Regards, Gaius Cornelius 09:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thespis (opera)[edit]

Undid one of your changes: 7th December appears within a quote, and you don't change quotes. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Sorry, every once in while I get it wrong. Thank you for fixing it. Gaius Cornelius 15:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry - it's not like it's exactly a common situation, and it's not really immediately obvious it's a quote unless you read carefully =) Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the cleanup work[edit]

Thanks for the cleanup work on Battle of Red Cliffs. PS there's a redlink on your user page: Template:GBthumb-caption

Later, Ling.Nut 11:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your are welcome of course. Duplicated words can be very hard to see, but WP:AWB can fix them easily. Gaius Cornelius 12:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin[edit]

Hi. I'd like to nominate you as an admin, as I think you're qualified. Let me know if you're interested. Epbr123 20:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it is about time that I took an interest in becoming an administrator. What do I need to do? Gaius Cornelius 23:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll set up your nomination tomorrow at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. You'll then have to state that you accept the nomination and answer the questions. Epbr123 23:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thanks. Gaius Cornelius 08:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Epbr123 would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Epbr123 to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gaius Cornelius. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

Your RFA was successful[edit]

Congratulations, I have closed your RfA as successful and you are now a sysop! If you have any questions about adminship, feel free to ask me. Please consider messaging me on IRC for access to the #wikipedia-en-admins channel. Good luck! --Deskana (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I dare say I will have some questions in the future. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 10:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt you will do a good job. Even though I didn't nominate you! :) Rudget.talk 18:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe. :) Rudget.talk 18:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! Now go forth and adminfy! SilkTork *SilkyTalk 18:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats. Can you sort out your thankyou note to include closing the box though [8] Cheers! Pedro : Chat 23:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad. thanks. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 06:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're are very welcome! I'm very pleased to hear of your success! Enjoy the tools. :-) Lra drama 09:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations and good job! Ave Gaius! Slade (The Joker) 12:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hello[edit]

AfD nomination of Sony Ericsson Z530[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Sony Ericsson Z530, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sony Ericsson Z530. Thank you. --Kushal^t 14:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unexpected tidy space/nospace changes[edit]

I'm concerned that some of your AWB tidy changes have been too aggressive and automated. In the Austin, TX changes you made, there were many undesirable changes. In particular, here are some especially bad corrections your automation changed:

{{cite web | url = http://austin.about.com/od/weatherenvironment/a/weather.htm | title = Austin Weather & Climate | publisher = About. com | accessdate = 2007-03-19 }}

inserted a space in between a website's name.

The lowest recorded temperature was -{{nowrap|2 °F}} on [[January 31]], [[1949]].

did not include the leading negative sign as a part of the nowrap.

Highway 290 becomes its own road again southwest of the city, when it splits from highway {{nowrap|71 in}} a busy interchange in Oak Hill known as "The Y."

This is not a reference to units of measure, nor in inches.

Highway 71 continues as far west as Brady, TX, and Highway 290 continues west to intersect [[Interstate {{nowrap|10 in}} Texas|Interstate 10]] near Junction.

Again, this is not a reference to units of measure. Additionally, this substitution broke a link to another article.

Although I'm sure some of these corrections have merit in other articles, I recommend carefully reviewing any changes prior to submitting them. Most of the "nospace" changes would have been better replaced with instances of "Template:convert", which I subsequently did instead of undoing your changes. I also find the "insspaceN" and "spacex" comments to be distracting, and should probably be eliminated prior to submitting. Thanks. -- Bovineone (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Mea Culpa. I don't know how this has happened, but the comments you have found are inserted against automatic updates so that I can search for them and check the update before proceeding. The comments should always be deleted as a part of my process; the fact that you have found these comments means something has gone wrong - and evidently those manual checks have not been made. Hopefully, this is a one off incident, but I will go back and check edits at a similar time. Thanks for pointing this out. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it's possible that the Austin, TX article might have been the only one that made that mistake on. After checking a quick sampling of the few others articles you edited around that time, I don't see any others of those comments. In any case, I would highly recommend that you be converting units to use the Template:convert instead of Template:nowrap, when possible. Perhaps your AWB tool can be updated to automatically perform that substitution instead. What do you think? -- Bovineone (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Template:convert is rather splendid, but I went for making use of Template:nowrap for a couple of reasons. First, it is specifically given as one of the MOS options for Non-breaking spaces. Secondly, Template:nowrap is rather more amenable to automation. Even so, perhaps I will look again at the more ambitious idea of using Template:convert. Thank you for your help and suggestions. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 10:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AWB[edit]

What is that tool you used for tidiness? Alatari (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AWB is the Auto Wiki Browser. It is used by many editors of wikipedia and is available to any editor with a reasonable amount of editing experience. AWB allows many routine jobs to be performed such as searching for errors or making systematic changes. If you have any further questions, do please ask. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm d/ling now and will try it out. Alatari (talk) 07:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pillbox Row[edit]

Hi Gaius, Thanks for your constructive thoughts. 1. Happy if the article is renamed 'Pillbox affair'. Incidents like this don't really have official names. 2. It's probably better if someone else than the author fixes things like tricky pronouns, I will just read it the way I understood it. 3. I didn't use inline citations as the whole article comes from the same source, so the references would be disruptive and add nothing. Thanks for your interest. Cheers GrahamBould (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

You know that your name is the same as a name in the book "The Skystone", right? <DREAMAFTER> ^<TALK> 03:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I had no idea. Gaius Cornelius was a very common Roman name. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 08:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hard spaces again[edit]

Things are moving along at our page concerning hard spaces. I hope you will join in again now, as we approach a crucial vote.

Best wishes to you.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 00:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Database scan and AWB[edit]

Hi. You answered a request of mine about AWB some weeks ago. Can you please put some articles of Wikipedia ending with comma in my Talk page? As much as you can. I would like to examine/work with them. Thanks. -- 21:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

There should be a new version of the wikipedia database available very soon. I will download and search that when it becomes available. Just to be clear, do you want articles with titles ending in punctuation or articles with links ending in punctuation? Gaius Cornelius (talk) 09:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that a new dump is currently in progress. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Gaius Cornelius/article list

Image:Booty from the Dacian wars.JPG[edit]

Hello. Thanks for making this photo. Can you reload it at commons with pd-self license? It will be usefull for other wikipedias. --Shakko kitsune (talk) 12:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC) {{NowCommons|month=January|day=26|year=2008|1=Image:Booty from the Dacian wars.JPG|2={{{2|no}}}}}[reply]

Database scan and AWB[edit]

Thanks for the list. After nominations for speedy deletion, only one article with comma (and none with semicolon,) at the end survived. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for updating the list. I ll be visiting regularly to nomination redirects for deletion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The database scan is imperfect, so I may continue to stumble upon instances and I can re-run the whole procedure with the next database drop (if I remember). Gaius Cornelius (talk) 13:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hard spaces again[edit]

Progress, yes?

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 07:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two things[edit]

As a war buff I wonder if you could help.

A memorial stone to Corporal John Smith at Montgreenan old castle.

Any idea why a chap from Ayrshire would end up being killed at Chattannoga in 1863? Very odd gravestone as well. It's like stoneware.

The Canadian tree grubber, assembled in Scotland, purchased by the army in WW2 to rip up aerodrome runways if an invasion took place and used by Howie's to uproot trees in the park. It was hauled by a powerful Foden Trucks tractor, possibly via a pulley and cable system.

Could you comment on this anti-invasion suggestion?

Any help would be much appreciated.Rosser (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

photo inquiry[edit]

Hi,

I am planning to use the picture of myrrh that I believe you posted on Wikimedia Commons with a public domain license in a book I am writing. I would like some additional information as to the source of the picture and what name I should use in the credit line. You may respond here or to my email at jkwalton5@gmail.com.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkwalton5 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broken AWB edit[edit]

While most of the changes you made recently to Nintendo Entertainment System using AWB were good, I had to revert a part of it that was nonsense. Remember that the AWB rules of use require you to check every edit before saving it. Thanks. Anomie ⚔ 18:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing my mistake. I do check, but every once in a while one gets past me. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edits at Corporate Average Fuel Economy[edit]

You recently edited CAFE and added a lot of date links, several of which are red. Why did you do that? Pdbailey (talk) 03:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many red-linked dates in that article. If you carfully study the changes that I made, you will see that far from adding more in, I took several out. I did introduce a small typo, which I have since corrected. Many of the dates in the templates are clearly ill-formed wikipedia dates that do not show up correctly, others are less obvious and I cannot immediately see what is wrong with them - but they were all there before I edited the article. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 12:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the format for dates using Template:Cite web should be in the form 2008-02-25 Palmiped (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sorry for the confusion. Pdbailey (talk) 04:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curious AWB fix[edit]

What did this ([9]) edit do? --Dweller (talk) 12:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My AWB configuration automatically makes many types of edit, some of which do not show up very clearly on a diff. Almost certainly there will be a space that has been inserted/deleted/moved around puncuation or a footnote - a space before a comma instead of after for example. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Gotcha. Cheers. --Dweller (talk) 13:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another AWB Problem[edit]

Hi, your AWB edit here [10] broke a media file. You might want to add rules to make sure you aren't changing text inside links or templates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.29.43.3 (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that and thanks for making the fix. It is necessary to eye-ball for such things and while I don't often miss them, a file name with dashes, parenthesis and commas caught me out this time. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 14:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please unblock User talk:165.21.154.89[edit]

The ip is not fixed and changes on page refresh. There is a high proportion of good edits compared to vandalism. The block fustrates legitimate users and readers more than vandals. Thanks. --165.21.154.92 (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is still a lot of vandalism from that source and wikipedia must be protected- probably the entire range of IP addresses will need to be blocked. The block is only to anon users and I did not block account creation. In the meantime, I will take the block off. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 10:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering[edit]

Can you send me a Barnstar. I would really like one! Please and thank you. Thright (talk) 05:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)thright[reply]

Hi[edit]

I dont understand why you come to my talk page and put warnings on it. I found your comments ill justed and they are not vandalism as it is MY talk page. Please do not come to my talk page to post negative comments. I am here to edit and help add to this project.

ps do not take this comment as a personal attack. I am sure you will understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thright (talk • contribs) 21:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second that. Posting warnings on someone's talk page after they removed a comment tends to inflame rather than calm. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the best thing for me to do is to ignore the negative a feedback above and maybe to delete it? I am on a wikibreak for now and cannot deal with the issue. GC . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.119.138.179 (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar[edit]

		The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
		For cleaning up and tidying articles which is both underappreciated and much needed. Thank you on behalf of our many readers as well as editors such as myself who need regular assistance with all manner of errors and missteps. Benji boi 03:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AWB help[edit]

Hello! I read your recommendation at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Settings/Bracket reference conversion and used it. It worked but I want some further help that is if "{{reflist}}" is not present in the article it should also add that. So can you help in writing a regex for that. Thanks! --SMS ^Talk 13:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most obvious thing to do is to use the Advanced find and replace feature of WP:AWB, see here. This feature allows you to apply a regex find and replace conditionally. So, create a rule that looks for "{{reflist}}" in an article, I guess that would look something like:

"\{\{reflist*\}\}"

This needs to go in the "if" tab of the rule.

Then add a sub-rule, this time useing the find and replace with boxes. Here you put the two parts of the Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Settings/Bracket reference conversion you were refering to.

I have not had the chance to actually try this, so a little experimentation may be required. Please let me know if you have any problems and, indeed, when you succeed. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help! but it didn't worked and another thing that the Alternative search and replace for external links you told here also changes external links under the External links heading, so, how it can also be avoided? --SMS ^Talk 09:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

Curious about your name here. My real name is an exact anglicanisation (godawful word: can't think of another right now) of it. Plutonium27 (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spell checking Levenshulme[edit]

Just a quick note with regard to your so-called spell checking of the Levenshulme article. "publically" is just as correct as "publicly". You may save yourself some time and CPU cycles if you check the variants before you go ahead and try to correct them. Just a thought. --WebHamster 21:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That particular "correction" is to be found at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos. You may care to take the matter up on the talk page. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dortmund Airport[edit]

Please don't change the format of dates, as you did to Dortmund Airport. Most British people and many people internationally write dates in day-month-year order, e.g., 12 December 1904. Most Americans use month-day-year order, e.g., December 12, 1904. If the article is about an American topic, use month-day-year. If it is a British or European topic, use day-month-year. If neither, leave it as originally written. Many Americans or British people take offence if an article about their country, written in their local version of English, is changed around to a version they don't use. So please do not do that.

Dates are usually enclosed in two square brackets, as in [[12 December]] or [[December 12]]. This means that you can set your preferences (if you look around your screen you'll see the word preferences; click on it and follow the instructions) to ensure that you see all dates in the format you want, whether date-month-year, month-date-year or yyyy-mm-dd. The general rules on how Wikipedia articles are written can be seen in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Rules specific to dates and numbers can be seen in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).

If you have any questions about this, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Enjoy your time on the web's fastest growing encyclopædia (or encyclopedia, if you write it that way!). Thank you. TINY MARK 21:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are a bit confused. My changes did not change the format of any dates on in the Dortmund Airport article, I just corrected the parameters of the cite web template. If you will just refer to the template, you will see that using accessmonthday (or accessdaymonth) is the correct thing to do if you are not using the ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD format. I used the parameter form appropriate to the date as I found it. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 22:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right I obviously way confused. I will try to correct it—I actually reverted the spam from the user before your changes. I will try to make the references inline citations. Happpy editing TINY MARK 22:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The ideal date form is the ISO format. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 23:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Syriac people[edit]

Hi can you please delete the empty page "Syriac people", so we can move the article "West Syriacs" to "Syriac people". we have discussed the issue, but we forgot that article "Syriac people" was alreade created and used as a redirect page. VegardNorman (talk) 13:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While you are at it, can you please delete Achaemenid Assyria per Talk:Persian_Mesopotamia#Requested_move. Chaldean (talk) 14:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Syriac people - Done Gaius Cornelius (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you may not be aware of this but these "uncontroversial deletions" of yours are in fact extremely controversial. --dab (𒁳) 19:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to look at Achaemenid Assyria, if it has been deleted, it was not by me. I deleted Achaemenid Assyria - which was only a redirect page with very few links - so that it could be moved to or reconstructed as editors desired. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 07:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please delete Syriac/Aramean people. VegardNorman (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Substantial edits at the Dorje Shugden article[edit]

Dear editor I like to draw your attention to that specific article, Dorje Shugden, which was substantially changed by a group of three new editors, without any discussion on the talk page. Rather one of the new editor revealed: "Many of these changes were discussed between at least three of the editors." which must have happened outside of WP, because there is no discussion on the talk page or their WP-accounts. One of the new editors claimed: "You seem to be the only person who accepted this article as it was. If you check you will see that the changes made make this article more neutral and unbiased then it was before previous edits." If I check I see the article omitted different POV's, deleted verified passages, included passages from anonymous websites and turned the article to a more bias Pro-Shugden POV. I'd like to ask you to check that and to give your opinion or to collaborate if there is a need for improving the article, so that we can have an unbiased, neutral, well-informed article which fairly presents all POV's. Thank you very much, --Kt66 (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Project[edit]

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: Your use of AWB[edit]

Please turn off the feature in AWB that's "tidying" the dates. In this edit, you made some changes that violate the Manual of Style for date linking. Specifically, it's okay to link the day and month (because that helps the software show the date correctly in the reader's preferred format) but years should only rarely be linked. Certainly none of the years in that page deserved linking. Rossami (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that isolated years should not generally be linked. (There was a mistake in the edit you cite, but it was not of that sort and I have now fixed it). I certainly did not intentionally link any isolated years - if something has gone wrong could you help me out by pointing to a specific example? Gaius Cornelius (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just isolated years that should not be linked. It's more that years should only be linked with the topic is significant enough that you would put the event on an all-encyclopedia timeline. It the example above, you corrected several instances of the date from "retrieved 8 January 2006" to "retrieved 8 January 2006. No one looking for the significant events of 2006 (by checking the inbound links of the page) would want to see that some random wikipedia editor happened to retrieve an on-line reference in that year.
No one will argue with the correction of 8 January but linking the 2006 does not follow the Manual of Style. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that linking the month-day and the year is the correct thing to do. I refer you to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Autoformatting and linking

A combination of a day number and a month can be autoformatted by adding square brackets ([[5 November]]). If a year is also given, with a separate link, all three items are autoformatted as a single date. ...etc.

I think that the prohibition you alude to only applies to isolated years. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tidying up the spelling at Spilsby but I also have an issue with your use of AWB to insert unnecessary date links. My only comment is to nudge you in the direction of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Limit links to other time period related articles which says "Wikipedia has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic." (emphasis in original) Wikilinking lots of individual years probably doesn't add to the utility of the article and may even distract from the other. My feeling is the changes to Spilsby DO detract from readability and add nothing to the understanding of the article. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find the MOS section to which you refer. Can you please help me find it. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well swipe me with a wet kipper, it was there the last time I looked. When I started editing wiki three months ago I linked every date and was pulled up by another editor who quoted the above at me, so I stopped and I must admit it does make the articles read better. What is added to an entry by linking all those meaningless dates? What benefit would anyone get from clicking the date links in mid read? 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 23:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greenstuff, you are not alone in your misapprehension; the MOS has, at least until recently, been rather confusing (even self-contradictory) on this point. However, I refer you to section Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Autoformatting and linking. Unlike other wikipedia links, the purpose of linking dates is primarily to support auto-formatting so that dates come out the way that individual readers want to see them. Quite why it is done this way I do not know, but it has been the Wikipedia way for as long as I can remember; the major citation templates support linked/autoformatted dates and a quick look at any of the recent featured articles will confirm that date linking is a long-standing standard practice. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 08:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian[edit]

Well done for all your good work. I corrected a minor error you made and thought I would let you know. Best wishes, --John (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem and thanks for fixing my mistake. I have revisted the article and used the Template:lang with language set to undefined (und) to protect deliberate misspellings - most automatic editors inlcuding AWB will honour this, so you should not get any problems in future. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ummm....Aaaahh → Aaahh on Kelly Clarkson??[edit]

Please forgive me for polluting your talk page....but how in the world did AWB come up with THAT misspelling? I laughed for about 5 minutes after I saw that. Regards. --Hourick (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I think it must have been the Tripple letter rule. I guess that it is really aimed at errors such as trippple. I don't think I have never seen that rule applied before. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AWB note[edit]

Hi Gaius, I'm not really sure how AWB works, but you may need to adjust one of the settings. For some reason AWB broke several templates in the references section of Zelda Fitzgerald as you can see in this diff. (The citations from Adair, Kakutani and Wood). It's been fixed so no biggie, but possibly something needing adjustment. Cheers. --JayHenry (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to my attention and for fixing this instance. I have not seen that before and I really don't know quite why that happened. I will look into the matter. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 08:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Stephen Donaldson (activist) edit[edit]

Thank you for the fixes you made, but why did you remove the paragraph breaks within the blockquotes? Espertus (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, this is a bug in AWB. Espertus (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see that the article has suffered similar attentions from AWB in the past. Very frustrating. I have edited the article to use Template:cquote instead, the effect is a little more emphatic that blockquote, but quite pleasing. And, I think it will fix the most immediate problem of unwelcome attention from AWB and similar editors.

Of course, if you dont like the effect, just revert it. The only other fix I know of is to be each paragraph in its own blockquote segment.

Gaius Cornelius (talk) 10:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citytrain page alterations[edit]

Greetings; I see that you have made an atleration to the Citytrain page. Do you know who user Arnzy is as I have attampted to contact this user about their reverting my corrections made on that page. The undoing of my contrbutions reverts the pages to a less clarified state.

Many thanks --Timelord2067 (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can contact User:Arnzy directly on his talk page|. Try not to take reversions personally and take the matter up on the Talk:Citytrain page. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 18:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your reply. I have attempted to make contact in that mannor. And no, I don't take offence if the reversion is warrented.--Timelord2067 (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timelord2067: The issue seems to be some way short of an edit war just yet and I don't see any pressing reason to interveen. I suggest that you initiate a discussion by adding a brief note on theTalk:Citytrain page, then make the edits you see fit citing your own comments in the edit summary: e.g. "...see [[Talk:Citytrain#my comments]]". If the diplomatic situation deteriorates significantly, let me know. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indispensible/Indispensable[edit]

Thanks for checking on the article History of the Falkland Islands, a lot of people who've decided to tidy the article usually just change it but the name of the ship was Indispensible. Justin talk 21:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I have protected the word from most bots by using the lang template with the language code und (for undefined). The language code can be changed if you know of a more appropriate one, e.g. fr for French. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 21:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I didn't know how to do that. Much appreciated. Justin talk 21:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; you are welcome. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to December 8[edit]

Hello. It appears that your edit to December 8 here with AWB had unintended results. The edit removed links to all the years in the article. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 20:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out. On reflection, it seems clear that these date articles should be an exception to the usual rule that "naked" years should not be linked. Which only makes me wonder why all years are not linked... Gaius Cornelius (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link all vs. not link all has been debated for quite some time. The consensus has been that it is better to link the first occurrence of the year in each list to partially conform to the MOS and also to make it easier to visually discern which events occur in the same year without using a format that is likely to be screwed up by casual editors. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 00:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AWB[edit]

Hey. Please try not to make frivolous changes that don't make any difference in the appearance of the page. Per the Rules of Use:

Avoid making insignificant or inconsequential edits such as only adding or removing some white space, moving a stub tag, converting some HTML to Unicode, removing underscores from links (unless they are bad links), or something equally trivial. This is because it wastes resources and clogs up watch lists.

—METS501 (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to look very closely at my recent edits. I have been correcting instances of duplicated words such as "a a" and these can be very hard to see. The other changes are just incidental. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All hail Gaius Cornelius[edit]

Now.....could you take a looke at some of my Roman Articles to check for my really bad spelling. Roman forum, Rostra, Regia, Curia Hostilia, Curia Cornelia and the Curia Julia You had corrected spelling on the Theatre of Pompey. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have had an initial look, not too bad generally although I am uncertain of the intended meaning of rostra/rostrum and I suspect that these may not be correctly used. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Halbe[edit]

your edit to the Battle of Halbe did something odd at the end of the header to the references subsection. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I think one of my little experiments did not quite work out right. Still, no harm done. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 22:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AWB (again)[edit]

The AWB script that you ran against Stretford autoformatted all of the dates in that article, which had recently been removed as per the MoS guidelines and discussion. It's no big deal for that article, as I can very easily remove it again, but you should not be using AWB to add autoformatting to dates. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I formated the dates as per MOS:SYL#Date_autoformatting. Where can I find the "the MOS guidelines and discussion" to which you refer? Gaius Cornelius (talk) 08:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the bit where it says that autoformatting is optional: "Careful consideration of the disadvantages and advantages of the autoformatting mechanism should be made before applying it: the mechanism does not work for the vast majority of readers, such as unregistered users and registered users who have not made a setting, and can affect readability and appearance if there are already numerous high-value links in the text." Many current FACs have opted not to use date autoformatting because of the inconsistencies it introduces. The MoS simply demands consistency throughout the article in either using it or not, as it says here: "In the main text of an article, autoformatting should be used on either all or none of the month-day and month-day-year dates." --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. I will aim for article consistency in future. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I know how dificult it is to keep up with the changing sands of the MoS. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how to interpret the changes to the date formats that you have been making today (using AWB), for example in the Renault Alliance and in the Simon Gray articles. This is because I was asked specifically not to format the dates that way: see here on my talk page. I am confused as to what is going on since your August 7 reply (above) was to try to have consistency. In other words, one group Wikis the dates and then the other side changes them back to plain text. I hope you can help straighten out this formatting issue! Thanks! — CZmarlin (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CZmarlin: It is all very confusing. It used to be the case that all dates were to be linked. Now it seems that there is no consensus anymore. So, I am from now on I am only date linking in articles where there is already date linking present. It is not like date linking has suddenly gone out of style, as a quick look at recent examples of Todays featured article will reveal - every one of them has linked dates. And of course, most templates generate linked dates. For me, date linking is just a side effect of other fixes I am doing and I have no real preference either way, but I do want Wikipedia to be internally consistent. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see if I have it: existing articles should have all their dates linked; however, new articles are to use plain text for all dates - other than in the automatically generated templates. That seems inconsistent and will be confusing as other editors make changes to articles, but we can live with that! That is, of course, until the next change in policy on this matter! Again, thanks for the reply! Carry on your good work! — CZmarlin (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice[edit]

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Dunkirk" soldiers pic[edit]

Hello, you have modified one legend on the Battle of France article. The one you put is consistent with the original legend that apparently went with that pic when it was first published in the US: British and French soldiers help one another up into the sandhills behind Dunkirk. Unfortunately, this picture was taken not in Dunkirk, but on June 12th or shortly thereafter in Veules-les-Roses near Saint-Valery-en-Caux, when troops from 51st Highlands division were surrounded and captured. Low in the following page [11] there is a pic (unfortunately very small) taken at the same place, with a wider view of the surrounding area. That small pic also shows a German guard, which proves the Scottish and French soldiers shown are indeed POWs. Compare with both older and modern pics here: [12] PpPachy (talk) 13:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I understand your conclusion as to the place; your arguments seem very convincing. However, I don't understand your confidence as to the date. Whatever the truth of the matter, the verifiable source is the publication of the image in Picture Post of which I happen to have a copy. Picture Post is, bye-the-way, a British magazine, or do you have another source for the US? If there are grounds for uncertainty then maybe the entire picture should be dropped. Of course, maybe the picture falls foul of copyright issues anyway, in which case the entire question is moot. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 13:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interference[edit]

Thanks for re-adding the speedy tag on Interference (band). The originator must've removed the tag I placed. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, of course. Fellow sceptic Gaius Cornelius (talk) 12:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AWB and Albert Jacka[edit]

In this edit the separated parameters had been deliberately used to achieve consistent date formatting. Other chagnes to dates you made were to quoted text which should be left as it appears in teh original source, even if that uses different formatting to what would normally be used in Wikipedia. David Underdown (talk) 10:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Working Men's College[edit]

Hi. I have reverted one of your edits on this page as the manner of writing the date is taken from my foundation stone inscription photo; this being being a direct quote. Thanks for the other typo correction. Best wishes, --Acabashi (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Sorry. Thanks for fixing. Happy editing, Gaius Cornelius (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Stuart Macrae (inventor)[edit]

On 13 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stuart Macrae (inventor), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cirt (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AWB making edits not in compliance with MOS.[edit]

I see that you are using AWB to convert superscript numbers into unicode: 2 to ² (e.g. this edit). This change does not comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics)#Superscripts and subscripts, both of which explicitly mandate the use of superscript tags rather than Unicode characters for superscripts.--Srleffler (talk) 05:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are quite right and thank you for bringing this to my attention. I had thought that the unicode was prefered in, for example, square meters. Although the unicode is certainly exteemly common throughout wikipedia, I see now that I should have been amending the other way - to 2. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help![edit]

Please see this discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Final_Fantasy_Legend_name_translation_woes.2C_mk._II

There is an ongoing issue with Kung Fu Man over an edit dispute which is getting out of hand, and I'm fairly certain the user is relying on sockpuppets to make revisions to the article. Check the revision history yourself to verify this. Also, I've been receiving harassing comments and threats from this user and am not sure where to turn for help. Please get involved and try to act as the voice of reason. Thank you. 74.242.123.2 (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a registered user? Please sign in and leave me another note. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Pyke[edit]

Thanks for getting some Weasel content into this article. Everyone remembers Pykrete, but the really useful thing he actually achieved does tend to be forgottten. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome of course - thanks for your interest. Yes, Pyke does not get the credit he deserves and is generally remembered for glorious failures. I have written the Geoffrey Pyke pretty much single handed and I have learned a lot about the man in my researches, but I would be hard pressed to sum up his character. Certainly he was both physically and intellectually brave. He could also be difficult and downright obnoxious; I have not gone into the matter in the current article, but his involvement with weasel nearly turned into a debacle.

I see from your user page that you have written on the Thornycroft Bison which happens to be another pet interest of mine. Good for you! Gaius Cornelius (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

looking help 2 decide what next[edit]

At
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:God_Arguments#What_about_this_change_at_the_proposed_teleological_item.3F
I've proposed this change, at one of the items (words/terms) inside the template:

Teleological [argument] ___ . . . _____to substitute with_____ . . . ___ Teleological [argument] (Argument from design), ___or better___: Teleological (design)
Better (than saying) substitution is 2note that I'm adding that: (design) to the other. And note: Argument from design is a REDIRECT to Teleological argument.

I don't know the procedure to discuss a small change, at an article or template, like that. The question is: it's a small change (I think), 'cause it leave all as it was, and at the reference: Teleological argument ONLY adds another link that is a REDIRECT to the other with the aim to compare easily: Argument from poor design & Argument from design; that are terms/references of those two: cons & pros arguments.

Maybe I wrote too many at the talk, but I wanted my intention not misunderstood. It was the reason to write there too: the original template and the one I propose.

I went first to the creator of the template User:Merzul, but is: retired, "This user is no longer active on Wikipedia". Then I came to you.

Thanks for reading me! And if you can help me with this subject, that is to modificate or not modificate it, and which procedures we have to follow. Dankon/gracias/Thank you! Sincerely.
--PLA y Grande Covián (talk) 05:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Erlang (programming language)[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Erlang (programming language), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erlang (programming language). Thank you. Fikusfail (talk) 04:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a --> an edits[edit]

Hi, Just a heads up - [13]

You've been changing a --> an when before wikilinks, which is technically correct if the wikilink isnt piped, or if the pipe starts with a vowel, but these are wrong.

In the example above, a [[Officers' Training Corps|cadet corps]] to an [[Officers' Training Corps|cadet corps]]

Cheers

—Ree dy 14:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tropicana Casino and Resort[edit]

I've reverted your change in the InfoBox for the Tropicana Casino and Resort in Atlantic City because you listed Tropicana Entertainment as the owner. For your information a friend of mine is a former employee of the Tropicana and I can tell you that all ownership of the property is now under the conservatorship of a former New Jersey Supreme Court Judge. In fact if you look on the Tropicana Entertainment website official website you'll see that there is no references at all to the Atlantic City property. If you have any further questions please feel free to leave them on my Talk Page. Rosie, Queen of Corona (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing my edits with those of another editor. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 23:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AWB errors[edit]

Hello, I've just had to repair some errors after your AWB bot work:

[14] This edit is deleting two sic comments (""), removing the periods at the end of sentences ending with "Dec", and mess with the comment next to Defaultsort.
[15] I had to waste time fixing at least all these. (And I don't even agree that a <ref> should always be forcefully pushed after the final period of a sentence when it is intended to source only the last claim of a sentence and not all claims in the sentence.)
Also you are mass-delinking dates but please note that the Signpost says "An injunction has been issued prohibiting large-scale linking or delinking of dates until the case is resolved" for everyone on Wikipedia.

— The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 22:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the Dec thing and thanks for sorting it out. You might not agree with the location of footnotes, but consistency is a very worthwhile aim. Finally, AWB is not a bot and I am not doing anything en masse. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 00:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The injunction is against any "bots, scripts, tools, or otherwise", not simply bots. AWB is included. Also note that "mass edits" could conceivably apply to your activity level. I would suggest turning off that part of AWB if possible to avoid running afoul of the injunction. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have done so Gaius Cornelius (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Air well (condenser)[edit]

Articles that are moved from userspace are treated as if they were created on the day they were moved. Shubinator simply didn't notice the move and I don't blame him. Apparently, the log for the page doesn't show any moves while the edit history does. I've contacted him and one of us will take another look. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Gaius Cornelius (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The hook fact needs to be cited with an inline citation in the article directly after the sentence in question. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a suitable citation. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bumping into each other[edit]

Hey there We'll probably be bumping into each other for a while, because I'm working on the Blacker Bombard in my sandbox at the moment, and then the Northover Projector and the Smith Gun if there are sufficient sources. Just thought I'd drop you a bell Skinny87 (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You seem to be doing a good job, so I will leave you to it - I did some earlier work on those articles so do let me know if I can help you. Presently, I have other projects on the go such as the Air well (condenser) article. When you do update an article, if it is significantly extended, then it may be eligible for the Did you know section of the main page - a fivefold expansion is the rule for eligibility.Gaius Cornelius (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Air well (condenser)[edit]

On May 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Air well (condenser), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Air well (condenser) Picture[edit]

Hi.

I read a dozen articles every day. I edit one or two every day. I think of it as my way to contribute something tangible to the world. If every skilled Wiki user improves a couple of articles everyday, soon they will all reach excellence. Most of the articles I edit are far from my area of expertise. I do this when I see something I am unfamiliar with, and the article is unclear. If I rewrite it with my understanding and for clarity, then a true expert will look at it and if I am right leave it alone, and if not fix it.

I have no special knowledge of Air Wells. But I do know how to use PhotoShop. So I just decided to clarify the picture, which I found cramped. What you posted contained all the information I needed to make my drawing. Your drawing was great, just hard to see. When I searched the web I found no more information than it already had. So I just redrew it using PhotoShop.

Nick Beeson (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My picture must have been better than I thought. I wondered because the reference was a little obscure. You are quite right about everybody contributing - if only it were so. Thanks again. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to Death Valley National Park[edit]

I always appreciate cleanup efforts, especially on FAs— but I wanted to point out two particular types of changes you made in this edit that are not really productive.

If a conversion is already given in appropriately-formatted plain text, templatizing this into {{convert}} just adds unnecessary overhead. This is insignificant in small quantities, but articles with many conversions often intentionally use plain-text conversions to avoid unnecessary load time.
Replacing unicode characters with the html code to produce the same ("km²" with "km2") is...kinda backwards :)

I don't mean to sound ungrateful—I noticed and appreciate that you switched a couple citations into numerical order, and removed a stray full stop, etc—but I do hope to convince you it's unwise to overwrite properly-formatted plain-text conversions with the conversion template. Thanks in advance for your consideration. Maralia (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Actually, km2 is better than km² for WP:ACCESSIBILITY reasons. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 - I'm not sure why you think so; it is my understanding that the ² character is in Latin-1 and would therefore be correctly interpreted by screen readers. Maralia (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 - I was thinking on a much more basic level: the superscripted version is easier to read than the unicode version. Also, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Conventions: "Avoid the unicode characters ² and ³. They are harder to read on small displays, and are not aligned with superscript characters (see x¹x²x³x⁴ vs. x¹x²x³x⁴). Instead, use superscript markup, created with ." Dabomb87 (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Dabomb87 has pointed out, km2 is the correct form according to the MOS, I make those changes because they help make wikipedia clearer and more internally consistent. The {{convert|...}} template has been much improved recently with careful consideration to the time taken - it is not very efficient. Its use can be recommended because it does rather more just perform the conversion: it enforces a standard formatting including non-breaking spaces etc. Also, I don't just convert existing instances, but add new converts where they seem appropriate - despite using AWB my edits involve substantial manual intervention. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gun calibres and convert template[edit]

Please do not use the convert template with gun calibres. Nominal and actual gun calibres are often slightly different. When people go to the trouble of looking up appropriate metric measurement of gun calibres for weapons with inch calibres, the use of the convert template destroys information.

It is a problem that far too many people simply do trivial conversions because they do not realise this. By the way I would be surprised at any 3-inch gun having a calibre of 76mm. Most either had a calibre of 76.2 mm or 75 mm.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not apply the convert template to gun and torpedo calibres because the nominal calibre is not the same as the actual calibre. You have been asked not to do this before, but you did so on 08:51, 20 June 2009 to HMS Hood (51).

It is probably not a good idea to replace true conversions of data with the convert template for armour thicknesses, shell weights, etc. When people go to the trouble of looking up the correct value, substituting a mathematical approximation may not be helpful.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Fire one!"[edit]

Hi. I'm not sure why you're on your ‘Torpedoes are launched rather than "fired"’ kick. It is, or at least was, the correct term.

PROCEDURES DURING THE APPROACH AND ATTACK; ... When the approach officer believes he is in the best position to fire, he announces "Final Bearing and Shoot" (notice he does not say the word "fire"). ... The Mark 14 torpedo can be fired with a gyro angle of up to 160 degrees right or left, however, this large angle introduces a very large margin of error and is called curved fire. ... After all inputs are generated in the TDC the word goes out "Fire One" (etc, etc, etc). Hopefully the Torpedo Room will announce "Number One fired electrically"! The above firing procedure is for firing one torpedo at the MOT (Middle of Target). If multiple torpedoes are to be fired, ... [16]

The text in those submarine articles was mostly copied from the U.S. Navy's DANFS. E.g.

... As hunting was poor, [Perch] shifted to an area off Hong Kong, and, on Christmas night, fired four torpedoes at a large merchantman, all missing. ... [17]

—WWoods (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot say that I'm particularly bothered either way, I happed to be going through a lot of sub articles as it happens - though I think I am done for now. One puts fire to a gun, but a torpedo is a machine so "lauched" seems much more logical and it is the expression generally used in the torpedo. Besides, it it is "copied" from a sourse that appears to still be in copyright, all the more reason to change it. But, if you do object, feel free to change it back. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a work of the US government, DANFS is in the public domain.

—WWoods (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move Survey: Your Opinion is Requested[edit]

There is a moving discussion & survey going on, on the page "Bitch". Your opinion has been requested, click here to vote, it is urged that you vote in a timely manner. Thank You.

I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AWB edit breaking link to image[edit]

Hi. Your recent AWB edit to the Teterboro Airport article (see Revision as of 06:17, 1 May 2009) included changing "TEB logo.png" to "TEB logo .png". As you can see, the space before ".png" breaks the link to the image, preventing it from being displayed in the article (which in turn almost caused the image to be deleted by a bot that tags orphaned fair-use images for deletion within 2 weeks). Luckily I caught this before the image was deleted and made the necessary corrections. I just wanted to bring it to your attention so that you can update whatever AWB setting caused this to occur. -- Zyxw (talk) 23:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out - and thanks for fixing it. I have hundreds of AWB rules to help format text. My AWB settings are not supposed to do that! I think my AWB was confused by the file suffix ".png" with which it is not familiar and assumed that the full-stop was an end of sentence. And, on this occasion, my manual review missed the mistake. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 06:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A similar thing happened in the featured article Agrippina (opera) where a required space before the file suffix was deleted and it wasn't noticed for 5 weeks. Previewing the edit before committing would have shown the error. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BR Standard Class 6[edit]

Hi. Could you double-check your recent mod to this page please? The cylinder size convert hasn't worked properly (check the diff).

Cheers -- EdJogg (talk) 12:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted that parameter. Thanks for pointing the problem out - convert obviously is quite behaving as expected and to make things worse it LOOKS alright making the error hard to spot. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 12:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup of American White Pelican[edit]

Something really strange happened with your 12:28 edit of this article link Apparently when you removed a redundant space it broke the link to a photo. I don't know how it worked to do that and why it wouldn't 'fix' until I cut and pasted the photo link from the previous edition. If you look back and forth on these edits you'll see what I'm talking about. Or maybe it's just because I'm running Firefox? Regards.Trilobitealive (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see it now. My AWB had deleted a space before the close parenthisis as in "(Pelecanus erythrorhynchos )". That is very unusual of course and I appologise for not noticing it. My AWB rules have hundreds of formatting checks for things like this, normally they are typos and I do have a provision for avoiding changes to text in a [[Image:...]] but this does not currently work for [[File:...]]; so that one got through. I will be more careful in future. Thanks for fixing it. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking at it. Talk to you another time.Trilobitealive (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

North Staffordshire Railway[edit]

thanks for the tidy up. NtheP (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pillbox article[edit]

The magazine Britain at War June 2009 ISSN 1753-3090 has a six page article on page 75 called defending the defenders all about British hardened field defences. Cheers --palmiped | Talk 12:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will investigate. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got that copy round here somewhere if you ever need it again. Skinny87 (talk) 10:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accessdate parameter[edit]

I saw in this diff and this one that you fixed an "accessmonthday" and/or "accessdaymonth" parameter with AWB. Please be informed that these are deprecated. The preferred way is to put day, month, and year together in the "accessdate" parameter.
See also {{Cite web}}. Thank you, Debresser (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did actually know that. My fix is semi-automatic and I have done such passes through Wikipedia many times before, so I know that there should not be very many of them. I am just fixing those fields so that they can be identified and transformed by a subsequent editor without having to worry about typos. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 09:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Air well (condenser)[edit]

Hi Gaius Cornelius, I've started reviewing Air well (condenser) which you recently submitted to WP:GAN.

The article worries me somewhat. You have obviously put a lot of work into this article, which is wide-ranging, well-illustrated and well-referenced. Having said that, I am sorry but I would not award this article GA-status as it currently exists. The problem as I see it are two fold: the article is written more in the style of an essay, or technical article, rather than an encylcopedia; and I don't consider that the layout is correct in respect of the WP:MoS.

The work that you have done is not wasted, as you have all the necessary information and the sources that provide WP:verification; but what I would suggested is that the article is reworked, and in places shortened.

Much of the text that you have put into the first section is quite detailed; and this would probably work much better if it was moved into the body of the article and a new WP:lead produced once the article has been reformated.

There are a number of ways forward:

I can put the article On Hold and you can make the changes and we discuss the way forward from there.
I can make the changes that I think are needed and we discuss the way forward from there.
I close this review and/or fail it.

How would you like to play this one?Pyrotec (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrotec: I certainly appreciate your offer of help; please make any changes that you see fit. We can then discuss the way forward. Thanks. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 07:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer. So far I've just worked on your Dew section by renaming it and copying in text from the Introduction; and later I will rewrite the WP:lead. The rest will take a bit longer, but the process will be similar - although I think that the prose in the sections on "design" need sliming down a bit.Pyrotec (talk) 07:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is now in a reasonable state, where I would be happy to consider it for GA-status. However, I will give you time to consider the changes. The article appears to be in British-English, so I used that; and I'm happy to discuss any concerns at this point. After that I can start reviewing it against the WP:WIAGA; and my comments will appear on the Talk:Air well (condenser)/GA1 page.Pyrotec (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrotec: I have check through the article and I am content. As I see it, only the lead has changed significantly. Thank you for your efforts. Please do go ahead with GA review. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In view of timescales, my preference would be to remove unreferenced material which would then allow me to award GA-status. You can of course re-add the deleated material at a later date, when you have suitable citations, without compromising any GA-status.Pyrotec (talk) 07:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrotec: OK. I have removed the offending paragraphs; I think that the article still reads alright without them. Hopefully that will be all you need for now! Gaius Cornelius (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Its now a GA. Pyrotec (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrotec: Excellent! Thanks for your help and hard work. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Syracuse University[edit]

Thanks for brining it to my attention, and I've fixed the problem. I am aware of AWB's shortcomings, and I likely just didn't see that when it came up. Also, while I understand your concerns, next time please refrain from using phrases like "you need to take take a little time" and directives like "Please put things right and take more care in future" as they aren't necessary. From the looks of it, we've both edited on WP for a good long while, and I think that merits being talked TO instead of talked AT. I'm not trying to be hyper-sensitive, make a mountain out of a molehill, or infer intent that likely isn't there, just letting you know how your message came across. Thanks. - Masonpatriot (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For your hard work[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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).[reply]

Blacker Bombard[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Don't get tripped up by temperature conversions[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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

Defaultsort for taxa[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

More on AWB[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Conversions[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

A file you requested[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

DYK for Cultivator No. 6[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

AWB on Norwegian American[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sciencelab.com removal[edit]

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)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Misstress Barbara[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Photo request[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

User:Akraj[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

User:Akraj[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Ckatz mental makeup can be gleamed at [18], at [19] and [20]. 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 [21].

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

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

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)[reply]

Deviousness and compulsive harassment by Ckatz cannot be underestimated [22]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.5.152 (talk) 01:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) [reply]

GC. You might like to see the comments of one user whose talk page has been vandalized repeatedly by Ckatz. [23]. 59.95.37.117 (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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

File:CalculatorOne.jpg listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

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)[reply]

wp:fix[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

George Rudolf Hanbury Fielding[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Putnam County Courthouse (Ohio)[edit]

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)[reply]

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

The National Archives[edit]

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)[reply]

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