The Advanced Training Squadrons of all day fighter Operational Training units would have 500 added to their numbers to become reserve Squadrons if plans under the code name 'Operation Saracen', made in Spring 1942 to counter a German invasion, were put into operation. Plans were revised under the code name 'Banquet' in order to accommodate additional resources. Records indicate the titles were used by several 'Operational Training Units' and '3 Tactical Exercise Unit' until at leaST may 1944for standing patrols, convoy escort duties, conversion training and night flying.
followed by lists of squadron numbers against OTU numbers and advanced bases allocated 12:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)Petebutt (talk)
Hi, thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed the discussion about the usage of judgment in Simon Singh - while it's true that judgement is correct in British English, judgment is and always has been used in the British legal context. Of the links you used for citation here, one says "the spelling judgment is conventional in legal contexts" (AskOxford.com) and another refers to a "court judgment" ( LDOCEonline). In Wikipedia's Manual of Style the difference is explained, saying "In Australian and British Law, a Judge's decision in a case is always spelt Judgment. On the other hand, the forming of opinion or conclusion by an ordinary person is usually spelt judgement."
Indeed, the actual judgment referred to in the Simon Singh article starts with Lord Judge introducing the "judgment of the court" (BCA v Dr Singh). It seems clear that the legal spelling should be used when it is mentioned in the article. While the spelling difference is dealt with on Wikipedia here, I will make this clear on judgement itself. Happy editing. Daniel Craig David James (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you are right! I had always thought it to be one of those US/British English differences. How confusing it is that the Oxford Dictionaries link has examples such as "pass judgement (of a law court or judge) give a decision concerning a defendant or legal matter"! Happy editing. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Accessdate
Thank-you for your tireless work in correcting the accessdate parameter in articles such as SNCF Class B 82500 and many others (I'm glad to see I'm not the only one to get this one mixed up. I know I can never remember the exact for of the parameter, and I must have forgotten to check it with the "Show Preview" button that time. Tim PF (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are very welcome and thank you for the feedback. Given the complex history of these templates and the frequency with wich they are used, it is surprising that there are not more of these little faults. Happy editing. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Donald Banks
Thanks for the message on my talk page - I'm pleased you like my start on the Donald Banks article. I have now completed by first round of editing, so please feel free to start adding to it. I have very limited knowledge of the work of the Petroleum Warfare Department - I have his book "Flame Over Britain" but must admit that I have not read it yet! - so I have little to contribute in this area. My interest stemmed more from his connection with Guernsey and in particular as founder of the Guernsey Society of which I am a current member of the Council. I am currently compiling updates to add to the sections on his early life in Guernsey, his World War I service in the Essex Regiment, and his time as Postmaster General of the Post Office and Director of De La Rue. So I will await with interest any contributions you will make to his WWII service. You may already know, that the Imperial War Museum holds a collection of his papers. footie (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
About your edits to the "Enzo Martinelli" entry using AWB
Hello Gaius Cornelius, I am writing you since I would like to ask you... Ach, is really the correct form for the relative positions of inline references this :;,.<ref>Blah, blah, ...</ref> instead of this <ref>Blah, blah, ...</ref>:;,.? If this is true, I think I should change all the entries where I did substantial additions. :( :D. Daniele.tampieri (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Daniele, generally speaking we put citations after punctuation. I think you will find the Manual Of Style (MOS) information that you need at MOS:REFPUNC. If you prefer, simply peruse a few examples of featured articles for what is de facto acceptable practice. Do let me know if you have any further questions. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 08:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I see that I must definitely change my edits involving inline references. Gaius Cornelius, thank you very much: more and more frequently I see that it is necessary to know every part of the WP:MOS, obviously if one wants to be a steady-state quality Wikipedia contributor. Daniele.tampieri (talk) 11:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Daniele: You are welcome of course. All the little rules of WP:MOS can seem rather daunting; I am sure there is nobody who knows them all and in any case there are probably some inconsistencies in there. It does not help that the MOS is constantly changing – mostly in small ways. Remember, you can probably get as much out of looking at example featured articles as reading the MOS. Don’t worry too much about the rules, enjoy your editing and learn as you go along. If another editor does step in be assured that they are probably just trying to help. Happy editing Gaius Cornelius (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Livens Large Gallery Flame Projector
Many thanks for your kind assistance on Livens Large Gallery Flame Projector and for tidying up after my many little mistakes. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
You are very welcome. It is becoming a nice little article on a very interesting topic. I hope that the Did You Know will get it some more publicity. I only recently stumbled on your DYK, do you think you could come up with a more appealing hook? Perhaps mention the power, range, rare success etc of the weapon? Of course, what the article really needs is a picture but I don't think we can hold out much hope except that I am not at all clear on copyright the status of such old photographs. You may find this link useful. Happy editing. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not having checked the link to OS Map (I were not aware of what it was). I have changed the link in the article from the disambiguation page to Narborough, Norfolk. Thank you for your quick answer. Have a nice week end. Skiff (talk) 07:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel I have quite enough just now for anything other than a stub article. I do have some books etc, but not enough time to do the man justice - though I will check to see if I have written anything off-line as I sometimes do. He had quite a long and varied career, not just his WWII work. If you wish to create an Edward Terrell article do please go ahead and I will be happy to chip in with what I have. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you move it to article space (since the basis is your work and you deserve credit), I'll give it a quick polish - and then hopefully others will come along and contribute. Sounds like an interesting chap. I read Macrae's book on MD1 and I suspect Terrell's Admiralty Brief is an equally interesting book.GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, good work on the article. But can you make aure everything is cited, as I'm seeing a lot of paragraphs/sentences ending uncited. And could the Development section be trimmed down somewhat? I don't think everything there is essential; at the very least, it needs a subsection. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added a couple, but I think you got everything else I was concerned about. It's looking in much better condition at the moment; I'll have a more in-depth look tomorrow night after work. Thanks for the hard work! Skinny87 (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Section post
Hello Gaius Cornelius,
First, thank you for your answer to my last request.
Today, I am a little annoyed with this. I not sure I am well understanding "Section post" to translate it. Was does it means exactly? Does "Section" mean a military section (like a division) or a section like a section in a drawing (a cut). Same question for "post". Is it a pillar or a position where soldiers a waiting for the enemy? Unfortunately, the picture let me imagine that it could be a position for soldiers or a transversal section with pillar. To my opinion, the first idea is the good one but I would like to be sure.
Thanks in advance for your help, Best reagrds. Skiff (talk) 05:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Skiff: I only know for certain that "section post" is the name given to such structures. I am pretty sure that the sense of the expression is a "position defended by a section of men" - that would be consistent with the size and evident purpose of such structures. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 08:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick answer. I have an additional question. My goal is to make the french tranlation of "British anti-invasion preparations of World War II" a featured article (in the next 3-4 months). But on the french side, no red link are allowed for a featured article, and there is still one (Campbell Stuart) in British anti-invasion preparations of World War II. Have you planned to make it blue? Thanks again for your help and please continue your good job. Skiff (talk) 09:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, This is a random survey regarding the first sentence on the Wikipedia policy page Verifiability.
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
Please don't quote from works of fiction in articles like you did. Not only is a work of fiction not a reliable source on the properties of something like this, but I would think that amount of copying probably actually constitutes a copyright violation. You can normally copy about 3 sentences or so, beyond that it gets really murky, and even that can be too much. You seem to be consistently copying rather more.GliderMaven (talk) 00:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
WP:MMA
Thanks for helping to make MMA articles on wikipedia better! In September 168 people made a total of 956 edits to MMA articles. I noticed you havn't listed yourself on the WikiProject Mixed martial artsParticipants page. Take a look, sign up, and don't forget to say hi on the talk page.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Malting House School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trinity College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi Gaius Cornelius, in editing the article on Adelaide, you inadvertently changed the title of the reference paper "The Adelaide Earthquake of 1st March 1954" to "The Adelaide Earthquake of 1 March 1954". In this instance, the original title is correct, so I've changed it back. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 06:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your edit to Snorkeling. Could I ask, though, that when you use the {{convert}} template, you check that the resulting text doesn't show spurious precision: "Generally shallow reefs ranging from sea level to 1 to 4 meters (3.3 to 13.1 ft) are favored by snorkelers." looks odd as the values are very approximate anyway. You can always use the |n parameter to force n decimal places, or the |sigfig=n parameter to round to n significant figures. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Gaius Cornelius, HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions! From a fellow editor, FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").
Some of the changes were more-or-less neutral, but they certainly were not typo fixes as stated - they were what the author intended to write.
Other changes were distinctly unhelpful, for example:
Changing "Similarly, though the house never contained a large number of troops..." to "Similarly, though the house never contained a numerous troops..." and changing "Ney had few infantry reserves left..." to "Ney had little infantry reserves left" are completely ungrammatical.
In my opinion, only the very last change made can really be defended as an improvement. I have looked at a few of your other edits and I think you should use more care to ensure that edits really are improvements that make an article easier to read and that they do not change the sense or nuance of the text. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 05:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After a second pass, I have to agree with a lot of your points. I revised direct quotes and used past tense when present was more appropriate. Thanks for having such a sharp eye. However, I don't fully understand some of your reverts. Why is "some of the" better than "some", "a large number of" better than "numerous", " with the exception of" better than "except", and "were one and the same" better than "the same". Perhaps there's something I'm missing here. Thanks. -WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, one of your edits changed "a large number of" to "a numerous" - the "a" was left in after the edit which does not make sense. Other than that, I would say it is more a question of style. I am sympathetic with the idea of removing unnecessary words and doing so is often an improvement, but not always. For example, "a large number of" is simpler English than "numerous" and "were one and the same" is an idiom that emphasises sameness. Please don't misunderstand me - many of your edits were perfectly good. I just feel that you need to think twice about what the writing was trying to convey rather than always minimising a sentence to a simple statement of fact. Edits that are pretty much neutral in effect are probably best avoided if only because they undermine the confidence of other contributors. Although I have asked you to think twice about your edits, I have reverted wholesale where I thought it appropriate so I may have undone some perfectly good edits along with ones that I thought need to be changed back.
Frankly, I'm just happy that editors like you are bold enough to revert so many of my obviously incorrect edits. Your comments have been noted and I thank you for your time. -WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 02:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
August 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mount Elbrus may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
for an [[Imperial Russian army]] scientific expedition led by [[General Emmanuel]], and the higher (by about {{convert|40|m|ft|abbr=on}} in 1874 by an English expedition led by [[Florence Crauford
the '''SM.79CS'''. One of them set further records in 1937: with three Piaggio P.XI RC.40 engines (for a total of {{convert|2,237|kW|hp|abbr=on}} it averaged {{convert|423.618|km/h|mph|abbr=on}}
As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Virginia Tech, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Virginia Tech. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!
