User talk:Gaius Cornelius

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

/Archive

Contents 1 Welcome 2 British anti-invasion preparations of World War II 3 Krypton Edits 4 Please don't spell check url's 5 Thanks for your work on Independence High School (San Jose, California) 6 Mendip Hills FAC 7 Capture of Cyanne 8 Mary Percy Jackson 9 Thank You! 10 Barbarians at the Gate 11 Sling article, "David gegen Goliath.jpg" image 12 Sustainable design 13 Thanks! 14 Cody Foster 15 Mike Westbrook 16 Re: British anti-invasion preparations of World War II 17 Peer review 18 British anti-invasion preparations of World War II 19 Periodic acid-Schiff 20 Mid Day Meals 21 Ref tags 22 edits to Smoking pipe (tobacco) 23 Fishing Portal 24 Fishing revisions 25 Chew Stoke FAC 26 A request for your help with my research 27 Lorica 28 AfD nomination of William A. Stein 29 61 Cygni copyvios 30 Puzzle jug 31 Two more things 32 Minor edits 33 Notification of proposal: Guideline/policy governing lists 34 Invitation 35 Lindemann 36 Recent edit: Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm 37 Please fix simple errors in articles 38 Your AWB bug report 39 Thanks for marking the intentional doubled "to" . . . 40 auto can go wrong 41 request for comment on Hugh Hefner 42 WikiProject Comics editorial guidelines 43 Fishing 44 HMS Java 45 List of Emperors of Japan/Japanese era name 46 Continent change 47 Thespis (opera) 48 thanks for the cleanup work 49 Admin 50 Your RFA was successful 51 hello 52 AfD nomination of Sony Ericsson Z530 53 Unexpected tidy space/nospace changes 54 AWB 55 Pillbox Row 56 Name 57 Hard spaces again 58 Database scan and AWB 59 Image:Booty from the Dacian wars.JPG 60 Database scan and AWB 61 Hard spaces again 62 Two things 63 photo inquiry 64 Broken AWB edit 65 edits at Corporate Average Fuel Economy 66 Curious AWB fix 67 Another AWB Problem 68 please unblock User talk:165.21.154.89 69 Just wondering 70 Hi 71 The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar 72 AWB help 73 Name 74 Spell checking Levenshulme 75 Dortmund Airport 76 Syriac people 77 Substantial edits at the Dorje Shugden article 78 New Project 79 re: Your use of AWB 80 The Guardian 81 ummm....Aaaahh → Aaahh on Kelly Clarkson?? 82 AWB note 83 Question about Stephen Donaldson (activist) edit

[edit] Welcome

Hello Gaius Cornelius, 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:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

[edit] Krypton Edits

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)

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)

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

As said, :) [1] 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)

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

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)

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)

[edit] Mendip Hills FAC

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)

[edit] Capture of Cyanne

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)

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

[edit] Mary Percy Jackson

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 <!-- comments --> 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

[edit] Thank You!

		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)

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)

[edit] Barbarians at the Gate

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

...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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Sustainable design

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

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)

[edit] Thanks!

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

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

[edit] Cody Foster

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)

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)

[edit] Mike Westbrook

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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

[edit] Peer review

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)

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

		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)

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

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)

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).

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

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

[edit] Periodic acid-Schiff

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)

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)

[edit] Mid Day Meals

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)

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)

[edit] Ref tags

_ _ 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)

• 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)
  

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)

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)

[edit] edits to Smoking pipe (tobacco)

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)

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

[edit] Fishing Portal

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)

[edit] Fishing revisions

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)

[edit] Chew Stoke FAC

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)

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

[edit] A request for your help with my research

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)

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

[edit] Lorica

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)

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

[edit] AfD nomination of William A. Stein

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)

[edit] 61 Cygni copyvios

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)

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)

[edit] Puzzle jug

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)

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)

[edit] Two more things

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Minor edits

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)

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)

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

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)

[edit] Invitation

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)

WikiProject Debating Invitation
Dear User, WikiProject Debating is inviting you to join as a participant. This special project attempts to standardize coverage of regional and world debate related articles. If you would like to participate, please join us from the following link WikiProject Debating. -- Niaz bd 06:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Lindemann

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

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

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)

[edit] Recent edit: Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm

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)

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

[edit] Please fix simple errors in articles

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)

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)

[edit] Your AWB bug report

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)

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

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

. . . 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)

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)

[edit] auto can go wrong

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)

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

[edit] request for comment on Hugh Hefner

Please take the time to go to Hugh Hefner's talkpage [2] 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)

[edit] WikiProject Comics editorial guidelines

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Fishing

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)

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)

[edit] HMS Java

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Continent change

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)

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).

[edit] Thespis (opera)

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)

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

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)

[edit] thanks for the cleanup work

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)

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)

[edit] Admin

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)

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)

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)

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

[edit] Your RFA was successful

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)

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

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)

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

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

Congrats. Can you sort out your thankyou note to include closing the box though [3] Cheers! Pedro :  Chat  23:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

• Congratulations and good job! Ave Gaius! Slade (TheJoker) 12:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hello

[edit] AfD nomination of Sony Ericsson Z530

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)

[edit] Unexpected tidy space/nospace changes

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.<!--insspaceN--> com | accessdate = 2007-03-19 }}

inserted a space in between a website's name.

The lowest recorded temperature was -<!--spacex-->{{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 <!--spacex-->{{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 <!--spacex-->{{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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] AWB

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

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)

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

[edit] Pillbox Row

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)

[edit] Name

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)

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

[edit] Hard spaces again

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)

[edit] Database scan and AWB

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)

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

See User talk:Gaius Cornelius/article list

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

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}}}}}

[edit] Database scan and AWB

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)

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

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)

[edit] Hard spaces again

See a full draft of the proposal

[Stable draft; last amended 11:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC). Development page: WT:NOWRAP.] Better markup for the hard space A proposal to implement ,, as markup for the hard space (&nbsp;) 1. Overview 2. Technical details 3. Objections and replies 4. Implementation 1. Overview The hard space is an important but neglected element in good Wikipedia editing. It stops an unwanted line break, so it is also called no-break space, or non-breaking space. An example (one sort from very many): no line break should occur in "17 sq ft". At present there are two ways to achieve this: first, with the raw HTML &nbsp; code (17&nbsp;sq&nbsp;ft); second, with the {{nowrap}} template ({{nowrap|17 sq ft}}). These options are hard to remember, hard to input, and hard to interpret on the screen. Some cases are far more complex. The solution? Introduce simple new Wikipedia markup, similar to the existing markup for italic (''italic text'') and bold ('''bold text'''). Although these are converted by the system into HTML code (<i>italic text</i> and <b>bold text</b> respectively), the text always appears in the edit box with the markup '' or '''. The proposal simply adapts this useful and accepted idea, to include the hard space. Extensive discussion among interested editors, followed by a poll, shows that ,, (two ordinary commas) is the best markup. When it is implemented, one could type 17,,sq,,ft in the edit box, which would be converted internally to 17&nbsp;sq&nbsp;ft, so that the reader of the article always sees an unbroken "17 sq ft". Editing, we would always still see 17,,sq,,ft. This innovation is easy for experienced editors and welcoming to Wikipedia newcomers, since it is the same style as markup for bold and italics. Analysis shows that comma-based markup could be extended for other formatting and punctuation; but that is beyond the present simple proposal. 2. Technical details The system's existing parsing of markup for italics ('') or bold (''') is a little complex. Those markups are "dual", requiring distinct interpretations as either beginnings (<i>, <b>) or ends (</i>, </b>). Those markups have to coexist with the use of ' as a single quote mark and as an apostrophe. Italics and bold are often applied together: sometimes overlapping, but more often nested like 'this' (markup: ''nested '''like 'this''''''). The WP community accepts the occasional ambiguity, and where the system fails to parse as an editor intends, there are workarounds available. The proposed markup for the hard space will be much more straightforward – for originating editors, subsequent editors, and the system itself. There are no beginnings and ends, just single applications. Still, some slight complexities will arise, and they are easily dealt with. We start with the simplest case: The case of ,, Exactly two adjacent commas will always be parsed as a hard space, yielding the HTML code &nbsp;. Inadvertent typing of ,, instead of , will cause no serious damage: its effect can easily be detected and repaired. The case of ,,, The markup ,, must coexist with the use of , as an ordinary comma in the text, though it will rarely be adjacent to such a comma. If this ever does happen, the natural parsing of ,,, would be as comma + &nbsp;. This could conceivably be needed in a complex subscript, like this: W1, 2, 3, ... , n (markup: W<sub>1,,,2,,,3,,,...,,,n</sub>). It is hard to think of a case in which the reverse would be needed (&nbsp; + comma); but if that ever did arise, <nowiki></nowiki>, &nbsp;, and {{nowrap}} would always be available, as they are now. The case of ,,,, (and higher even numbers of commas) Sometimes more than one hard space is called for: in fine-tuning spacing in tabular work, for example. (This is deprecated by some, but often a convenient solution.) The natural parsing of ,,,, would be as &nbsp; + &nbsp;. A similar interpretation would apply to any string of 2·n commas: it would be parsed as n instances of &nbsp;. And similarly for longer even-numbered strings of commas. If the editor intended comma + &nbsp; + comma, the existing alternative resources should be used. The case of ,,,,, (and higher odd numbers of commas) The sequence ,,,,, would be most unlikely to occur, and might arise more often as an error than as meaning anything specific. But the natural parsing would be comma + &nbsp; + &nbsp;. And similarly for longer odd-numbered strings of commas. If the editor intended &nbsp; + comma + &nbsp;, the existing alternative resources should be used. In short, there is a single rational parsing for any comma-based markup that could arise; and in the rare cases in which no comma-based markup will yield the desired non-breaking HTML code, alternative resources will meet the need as they do now. 3. Objections and replies Objection 1 Hard spaces? I never use them! Why should I care? Good editing requires hard spaces, even if many editors know nothing about them. Wikipedia's Manual of Style (MOS) explains some of their uses; and more uses would be added there, if only the markup were simple enough. Objection 2 The no-break space can already be input with &nbsp;. Recently this code has been attached to a button for insertion, under the edit box. Isn't that enough? There are three points to make. First, the code &nbsp; is hard to remember, hard to type, and hard to interpret on the screen, especially to those who are unfamiliar with HTML. One simple example: an en dash often needs a hard space before it. Consider "89 sq in – 3 sq ft". To keep this from breaking improperly you need to type, or later edit, this code: 89&nbsp;sq&nbsp;in&nbsp;– 3&nbsp;sq&nbsp;ft. Under the proposal, you would simply type this instead: 89,,sq,,in,,– 3,,sq,,ft. Second, note that the goal of wikitext is to abstract HTML codes away from the user, especially for common markup such as ''italics'' and '''bold'''. If the hard space is to be used as often as MOS advocates, it also needs this treatment. Third, the new insert button does not help with interpreting the code seen in the edit box. It helps with inserting: but you still have to find the button, then find your place in the text again. Do you really want to do all that three times, for the example just given? Objection 3 Why not use the Unicode character for the no-break space, attached to an insert button? There is still a problem with insert buttons as a solution. In contrast to &nbsp;, the Unicode non-breaking space is visually indistinguishable from the ordinary space. This is unacceptable, since the editor needs to be able to see the difference in the edit box. Objection 4 There is also a {{nowrap}} template. Why not use that? This template may be useful in some longer phrases that shouldn't be wrapped at any point; but again it is too visually intrusive to be used extensively for single no-break spaces. With the example above, the code would be {{nowrap|89 sq in –}} {{nowrap|3 sq ft}}. And many cases are more complex than that. Currently, {{nowrap}} does not behave well, since a space at the start or end of the enclosed text is rendered in HTML outside of that text, leading to unexpected breaks. There are other templates similar to {{nowrap}} that cater for specialised requirements; but all of these come up against technical inadequacies in the template system itself. And they all use the HTML <span> tag, which is interpreted differently by different browsers with unpredictable results. Use of &nbsp; instead is simpler, more intuitively understandable, and more reliable in its results on the reader's screen no matter which browser is used. That is what the proposal for ,, achieves. Objection 5 I use a non-standard editor with aliasing, so when I want a hard space I type /h to get &nbsp;. Easy! So what's the problem? There are two problems. The code you make is still hard to read and edit; and not everyone can do what you can do. Objection 6 I'm used to &nbsp;. That's what I'll always type! You could do that, of course. You'd still make markup text that's hard to read and hard to edit. Some people (very few!) type <i> and </i> in the edit box. But they'd make life easier for themselves and others if they just typed '' instead. Objection 7 The proposal is technically too hard to implement, and is not standard anywhere. It is in fact easier to implement than '', ''', and other non-standard markup used at Wikipedia (see Technical Details). Wikipedia is the leader in these matters. Our developers have the capacity to innovate, and others would almost certainly respect their precedent, and follow it. Objection 8 The new markup is unintuitive, and unlike anything we have already. In fact it is quite intuitive, at least for editors who are already used to '' and '''. Beginners have to learn that markup: the new markup simply uses , instead of ': similar but distinct characters, both with their own stand-alone uses as apostrophe (or single quote mark) and comma, and both also used in markup. Objection 9 Markup with commas is impractical, and a dead end in development. The comma markup has potential to be extended in all sorts of useful ways. Because a comma hardly ever occurs without a space or a digit after it, it is quite readily available for alternative use. We might in future consider markup like this: ,., (to force a break: equivalent to <br>; ,--, (for an en dash: equivalent to – or &ndash;); and so on. Such markup could be combined: ,,,--, (for an en dash with a hard space before it: equivalent to &nbsp;– or &nbsp;&ndash;). But any such extensions would be negotiable. Accepting the present proposal does not commit anyone to any such extensions. Objection 10 German and some other European languages use the character „ as an opening quote. Markup with ,, could easily be confused with that; and that markup might be needed in future for „ or for some other purpose. In fact there is little likelihood of the two being confused. Their appearances on the screen in common fonts are less similar than the appearances of '' and " are: and we all live with those quite happily. As for reserving ,, for some other purpose, the present proposal makes its own strong case. If others want to make their claim as well, well and good. But we see no evidence of any such claim; and the hard space is of such importance that it is unlikely to be trumped by anything more pressing. After all, those who use „ already have their own established ways of inputting it, just as we do for ". Objection 11 Other changes in the wiki-markup system would be more sweeping and more "wiki-like". Certainly the suggestion is unusual in that it proposes substitution of the single HMTL-entity &nbsp; for the single marker ,,. But the fact that this is easy to implement is not a principled objection, and certainly not a convincing technical objection. The logic of the subsitution is laid out in full above. As for the possibility of overall changes that would make this change redundant, this can be no serious objection either. We have been promised solutions to problems like the one we address here for a long time; but they are not forthcoming, and there seems to be no consultation about them beyond the technical development community within Wikipedia. The present problem has been identified by serious, active editors concerned with style and ease of use, and we find that the proposed solution does all that is needed. If a better solution eventually comes along, no harm has been done in the meantime. Objection 12 It's all too hard! How can editors bring about a change like this? It is hard work to bring about such a change. But the rewards for this simple innovation are significant. And Wikipedia is made up of editors with good ideas that they pursue energetically. That's really what it's all about! Developers and decision-makers will take seriously a proposal that grows out of the concerns of competent and committed editors. 4. Implementation After appropriate discussion at WT:NOWRAP, and possibly at MetaWiki, the coding and system changes for the new markup are a matter for developers. This proposal simply outlines the desired behaviour of the markup (see full specification in Technical details, above), and responds to predicted and actual objections so far. Once the new feature is in place, it would remain harmless and unnoticed by most editors, since they would rarely if ever input two adjacent commas. (This is a virtue of the proposed markup, in fact.) The community will therefore need to be informed of the change. This can be done at a variety of forums, including: Village pump (proposals); Village pump (technical); Village pump (policy); and other Village pump pages Manual of style; Manual of style (dates and numbers); and other MOS pages and talkpages Various community noticeboards Helpdesk; New contributors' help page; How to edit a page; Cheat sheet; and other articles outlining basic editing and markup The details can be determined once the new markup has been accepted for incorporation. In the meantime, nothing is lost through uncertainty and confusion, since the proposal adds a feature, but does not take anything away. In this respect it is safer than almost any alternative. For example, :: has meanings in mathematics (and : has meaning in current wiki markup); ;; may occur when HTML entities fall adjacent to a semicolon (and ; has meaning in wiki markup); `` has a meaning in some existing systems of wiki markup; etc. By notifications as outlined above, and through general community interactions, the new ,, feature should soon become a part of accepted practice, just as '' and ''' are already accepted and appreciated.

Progress, yes?

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

[edit] Two things

As a war buff I wonder if you could help.

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)

[edit] photo inquiry

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)

[edit] Broken AWB 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)

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)

[edit] edits at Corporate Average Fuel Economy

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)

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)

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)

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

[edit] Curious AWB fix

What did this ([4]) edit do? --Dweller (talk) 12:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

[edit] Another AWB Problem

Hi, your AWB edit here [5] 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)

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)

[edit] please unblock User talk:165.21.154.89

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)

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)

[edit] Just wondering

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

[edit] Hi

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)

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)

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)

[edit] The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar

		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. Benjiboi 03:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AWB help

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Name

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)

[edit] Spell checking Levenshulme

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)

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)

[edit] Dortmund Airport

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. TINYMARK 21:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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 TINYMARK 22:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Syriac people

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

[edit] Substantial edits at the Dorje Shugden article

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)

[edit] New Project

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)

[edit] re: Your use of AWB

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] The Guardian

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

[edit] AWB note

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)

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)

[edit] Question about Stephen Donaldson (activist) 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)

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

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)