User talk:Pyrotec/Archive08Q1

Black Down Decoy
Hi, As you may have seen at Featured article candidates/Somerset the latest reviewer has asked "Decoy town - was it successful in fooling the Luftwaffe? Presumably Brown's book tells us?" Do you have any further info on this?&mdash; Rod talk 12:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There were several decoy sites around that area, they were C82 Burrington A through to Burrington F. Dim red lights sound more like simulations of the lights around an industrial site etc than simulating incendiary markers.  Unsigned comment added by User:Jmb 14:24, 2 Jan 2008
 * Thanks Jmb. I've re-read the chapter in Brown, Yes the red lights were to simulate, e.g. an steam engine being stoked. Bales of straw in fire troughs soaked in creosote were lit to simulate the incendaries; water or more creosote could be added from elevated tanks - water made it flare (like burning magnesium). I've not read Dobinson, but you've whetted my appetite. Brown calls them Starfish sites but does not add that level of detail. I've also visited the Milngavie Starfish site that protected Glasgow; but that was about 15 years ago; so I did not know at that time how they worked.Pyrotec (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jmb. I've re-read the chapter in Brown, Yes the red lights were to simulate, e.g. an steam engine being stoked. Bales of straw in fire troughs soaked in creosote were lit to simulate the incendaries; water or more creosote could be added from elevated tanks - water made it flare (like burning magnesium). I've not read Dobinson, but you've whetted my appetite. Brown calls them Starfish sites but does not add that level of detail. I've also visited the Milngavie Starfish site that protected Glasgow; but that was about 15 years ago; so I did not know at that time how they worked.Pyrotec (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would recommend Colin Dobinson's book. I put all the NGRs in the book into a Google Earth Placemark file some time ago, it is somewhere in a message in Google Earth Communities.  I will see if I can put on my talk page here. --jmb (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that & sorry for any edit conflict stress - can I just query severely injuring & killing the herd of cows - if they are dead that is a pretty serious injury??&mdash; Rod talk 21:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that KMZ placemark file of decoy sites should be here but would not guarantee it! --jmb (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)
The December 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

M-1 Carbine Revert War
The M1 carbine article is currently on lock down. An administrator has requested some discussion from memeber of the Firearms Wikiproject. Can you take a look? Sf46 (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Somerset FAC
Unfortunately there has been a problem with FAC (possibly due to transcluded pages/templates & overall page size). As a result several nominations, including Somerset, have had to be restarted and I have been informed that all previous commentary (both supporting and opposing), including yours is void. As a result would you be kind enough to review the page and place any comments at Featured article candidates/Somerset. Thanks&mdash; Rod talk 19:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)
The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator elections
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kyriakos (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Glasgow and Milngavie Junction Railway
If you like I will work on the route template. --Stewart (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be great. Thanks very much Stewart. Pyrotec (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. --Stewart (talk) 23:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Milhist coordinators election has started

 * The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates.  Please vote here by February 28. -- R OGER D AVIES   talk 21:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)
The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 07:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Citation punctuation
Hi, you have reverted my edits on the Penney article 3 times now. Please can I suggest you re-read the WP citation guidelines here, especially: "Some editors prefer the style of journals such as Nature, which place references before punctuation. If an article has evolved using predominantly one style of ref tag placement, the whole article should conform to that style unless there is a consensus to change it."

The other style guideline that you have been applying that the article refers to, the CMoS, is a fairly recent style, and unfortunately when one uses it then citations often end up outside the sentence to which it applies.  Its a US-centric style and, like American spellings, looks highly incongruous in articles about British subjects. That is why I intentionally adopted the Nature style when I first added cites to the article; it is much clearer and is also an "approved" style in WP. In accordance with the WP guideline, in the absence of a consensus to adopt the US style I recommend we revert it back to the original style.

FYI, this confusion about the correct way to cite references seems to be endemic at the moment within the English WP as a whole. Perhaps this is related to a bug which was briefly introduced into AWB - after every automated edit it forced the CMoS style onto articles. The latest versions of AWB now behave properly as this "feature" has been removed. However, its been really annoying as most of us are here for the content and not the punctuation. Articles like Penney and his work can be contentious enough in their own right, and it would be good to maintain our focus on the subject, I think you'd agree. With best regards, Ephebi (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, you have levelled several incorrect claims at me in your response to the above. I will only deal with the worst one here, i.e. your accusation of "anti-USA feeling". Frankly I find it hard to deny this objectionable claim vehemently enough - having lived & worked (and written reports) on both sides of the Atlantic over the last few decades, & having a mixture of American & British family & friends (amongst other nationalities)


 * My objection to the CMoS does not originate in xenophobia but simply comes down to its poor legibility (which, like the 1984 MLA standard that predated it, sometimes works well in the printed paper medium, but does not work well when its forced onto the screen, IMHO.) If there's a better option available for an article then I will use it. Ephebi (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)