User talk:Gwinva/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

You're Back

I see you're back. Welcome back. I don't remember where the process was when you left, but the episode review process is very different now. We just review them on the talk page of the LOE page, and theres a list of all current reviews as WP:TV-REVIEW. Just to let you know. i ^said 23:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Six weeks... it has been that long hasn't it. I don't know how you managed :D i ^said 23:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I responded to your stuff on my talk page. Welcome back! Montanabw^(talk) 20:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Phoenix Islands

I am looking for documentation of the discovery of the Phoenix Islands, perhaps by John Palmer. There were numerous sailing ships named Phoenix in the right era (must be a Masonic thing). Resources are limited in my inland, non-Pacific area. Can you help?Pustelnik 12:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I write artcles that I look for but don't find, too.Pustelnik 22:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Is John Palmer also associated with Antarctica?Pustelnik 01:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops. The Antartic Palmer is Nathaniel Palmer, and American. He was in Antartica in November of 1920. Some of the British and American whaling families of this era were inter-related, but I don't know about the Palmers.Pustelnik 01:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting that captains named Coffin were mentioned in connection with the Ganges. The Coffins are a prominent Nantucket family of whalers, and the reason that there is a character named Coffin in Moby Dick. It suspect that the London whalers named Coffin are from the same family, and maybe the same individuals. There are odd mentions of "British", maybe East India Company sea otter traders using Portugese flags of comvenience out of Macao, ending up in the Pacific Northwest, such as the San Joa and Fenix. The whole whaling/sealing business in the Pacific was an early example of "globalization". For no particular reason, I wonder if Hugh Moore discovered the island/Pustelnik 00:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Pitched battles versus showing off!

I like your analysis. Really interesting. Amazing how little we really know, and how much comes from historians who don't know horsemanship or horsemen who don't understand historical analysis and research. The bayonet thing makes absolutely perfect sense. And indeed a single shot musket wouldn't really have been worth a damn. Here's a place for you to look: The Ottoman Empire. I am running across stuff in studying about the Crabbet Arabian Stud and the travels of Lady Anne Blunt. What piqued my interest was the political situation in the Middle East in the mid to late 1800's. Essentially, the Blunts in fact were correct that the Arabian horse was becoming endangered in its native land. The Bedouin used mares as war horses (they didn't believe in castration and stallions are useless for hit and run raids because they are too noisy). But they were losing huge numbers in battle against the Ottomans, 400 mares in a single battle in one account. What is incidentally coming to light is basically that it took the Gatling gun to do in horse cavalry.

Also remember that the US Army and the Indians, both light cavalry with similar weapons, fought each other to a standstill. (The American west has rough terrain that limited where you could bring in heavy artillery like cannons or gatling guns) It was the slaughter of the American bison, essentially biological warfare, that ended the Indian wars. The Great Plains tribes, particularly the Cheyenne and the Comanche, were superior horsemen, the Cheyenne were once called "The greatest light cavalry in the world" by a US military strategists. Essentially, the Indians were superior horsemen fighting on their own ground, which offset the disadvantage they had in having weaponry that was always just a little behind that of the army. Don't know why the Bedouin didn't figure that out when fighting the Ottomans in the same era, but there's an interesting study for you. Both nomadic peoples, both fighting on their own territory, both with tough horses and supposedly excellent horsemanship skills...what made the difference? Rarely were Indian horses killed on the battlefield, most "massacres" by the US Army (Fetterman, Chivington, Wounded Knee, etc.) were when they hit the Indian camps of mostly noncombatants. That or when hit and run tactics were rendered ineffective, such as the blizzard (and presence of noncombatants) that contributed to the military defeat of the Nez Perce. Well anyway, be fun if a couple of chicks figure out what has evaded mainstream historians for decades? (grin) Montanabw^(talk) 15:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Further excellent essay. OK, so cannon is pretty worthless against cavalry, but the gatling gun, and later the machine gun, would be deadly. Basically if we look to the rise of the tank around WWI, and the fact that tank units are today called "cavalry," seems to suggest that horses in general were done in for that reason. The switch from heavy back to light cavalry does seem more terrain-oriented than weaponry oriented. You may be on to something. Hmmm. I think that your guess that military tactics changed to defeat the advantage of mounted shock troops is the best. Possibly another factor is that if we look to the living conditions of Europe circa 1300 or so, they weren't so hot. Lots of poor people, lots of hunger, lots of scarce resources--mounted knights were expensive. Kirkpatrick Sale's The Conquest of Paradise paints a pretty grim of Europe prior to the Columbian exchange and the reason for the demise of the knight may have been economic also...we can look at the decline of the entire feudal system as mercantilism expanded as another source. I'm kind of thinking about Don Quixote -- the knight rendered obsolete by the modern world. Hmmm. Indeed, too bad wikipedia limits folks to research already done by others. This may be a discussion to take to email, you wouldn't happen to have a PhD around, would you? (grin) Montanabw^(talk) 03:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Smallville pilot

Thanks. Now that it's on the front page, the good news is that it's receiving more attention and more critical eyes to come in an copy edit some more. :)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Wallace

Dear Gwinva, I found your comments about Wallace to be impressive. Please don't put yourself down and please blame me for your sudden fall in self assurance. It was not my intention. I agreed with everything you said. Keep up the good work and please...you are welcome to comment on Wallace any time because you are clearly qualified to do so. I was delighted to see someone trying to blow away the myth of medieval man's stature. Anyone who knows the height of Edward I is a good guy or gal in my books. Any frustration you detected was due to the previous edit and not yours, which was nothing but extremely helpful. I apologise if I was a bit brusque. It was not directed at you. TheBourtreehillian 11:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Again Congressmen are notable

We are not talking about City tax collectors, we are talking about Florida Congressmen. These are Notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.164.212.234 (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Who Fob Watch

It's an American thing. We don;t call them fob watches. Admittedly, you may be an American so you might already know this... (although, I don;t think Pertwee was shown in the U.S. till the mid/late 70s so that throws American upbringing into doubt).--Dr who1975 18:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Horses and such

Hi, and say, did you ever have a source for the notion that economics may have done in the armoured knight more than either the longbow or gunpowder? I'd like to add such to both horses in warfare and horses in the middle ages if we have a source, or can make a reasonable inference from multiple sources without violating the wikipedia "no original research" thing. Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 01:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. It all makes perfect sense. Let me propose a run-on sentence from hell and see if you can source it (and maybe tweak the grammar too): "The end of the era of the knight may also have been a result of multiple factors: Changing military tactics that put less emphasis on the role of the individual knight,(source) the increased frequency with which the nobility sent others to fight instead of partipating in combat themselves,(source) as well as the economic challenges of keeping a fully armoured knight in the field,(source) particularly when compared to the more efficient uses of (infantry?) brought about by (better weapons technology??).(source)"

That reads horribly, but I think you can glean where I am going. Montanabw^(talk) 22:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense. THANKS! But yes to "I've got references (somewhere) for the fact that it's not long bow or gunpowder that did them in" If you can find a source for that, it would be cool to add. Montanabw^(talk) 20:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Knights

I have been busy dealing with other stuff and have just not gotten to it, so if you want to plop anything into an article, go for it, and if I get to it first, I'll go for it. The whole thing would go well into knight somewhere, I haven't been into that article much, it may need some shrinking down for horses in warfare, but to do so nicely will take some time that is currently being taken up chasing vandals and organizing all the list of horse breeds articles (sigh).Montanabw^(talk) 16:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I just put about as much as I dared into Horses in warfare, just to keep that article under control, I had to limit what I could add, but could you check the cites? I used a bit of copy and past, thus not sure everything you had is linked in the bibliographic stuff at the bottom with full cites (this article isn't quite as properly formatted as Horses in the Middle Ages). What is left on my talk page (and yes, it's OK you used it for a sandbox, I'll archive it all eventually but won't toss it), I think should go, as appropriate, into either Knight or Horses in the Middle Ages, both of which I shall defer to you for proper editing. Montanabw^(talk) 04:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Who Poll

Quick, hurry over to the "Time Crash" discussion page and register your vote for "The Doctor!!"

Blaine Blaine Coughlan (talk) 10:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello there

I see you are interested in the Life On Mars Television Series, as I am.

At the moment I have A Life On Mars Wikiproject currently up for approval by the Wikiproject Approval Council. As you are interested in Life On Mars I was wondering if you would be interested in adding your name and joining. If you are interested you can find it on Wikipedia: WikiProject Council/Proposals its right at the very bottom you cant miss it as its titled ‘Wikipedia: Wikiproject Life on Mars (Television Series)’. And after your name is added to Wikiproject propsals please add it to the main page Wikipedia:Wikiproject Life On Mars

If you are interested by all means feel free to join

Regards

Police,Mad,Jack

Ok thank you anyway :)

Police,Mad,Jack —Preceding comment was added at 14:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Howdy

Hi again. Ah, GA sweeps, see the talk page of Arabian horse. You got off light. I got nailed by an overeager sweeper. Montanabw^(talk) 19:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [1]. --Maniwar (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

New mission in the medieval horse land

Saw this: Old English Black, seems to be a type that developed mostly in the UK, and is definitely claimed as an ancestor of the Shire horse (you know, the great big huge things that claim descent from the Destrier. Also does not appear to be the Forest Horse nor the Black Forest Horse (but those are cool looking critters!) Anyway, thought you might want to eyeball it and see if any of your sources say anything about it. The article is crap, but I have run across many references to the "Black horse" or "Great Black Horse" in various horse breed and history articles. Be nice to clear this up. From the article, it isn't the Destrier, nor was it necessarily a Black (horse). But anyway, if you can add anything to the article, that would be cool. Thanks much! Montanabw^(talk) 05:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a made up theory, I've come across it in passing in a number of places, but like our original discussion over the Destrier, there are assumptions that may not be necessarily so. Hence, why I call upon you. While the article is unreferenced, I don't think the article is too far off base from what passes for "common knowledge" (in fact, I wonder if it was an import from the public domain Britannica), just unsourced and not well-written. The Shire horse people defnitely claim it as an ancestor. Possibly it was a 17th or 18th century critter, maybe even 19th. Just hard to find anything. Am discovering that many "world horse breeds" books out there are unsourced and generally, well, suck. Montanabw^(talk) 00:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and FYI, note I created User:Montanabw/Gwinva-Medieval Sandbox off of my talk page. We can play there or on the main page, but I THINK I saved everything in there should you require any of the drafts or refs. Montanabw^(talk) 02:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

My answer on my talk page, makes more sense to consolidate the whole discussion over there. Montanabw^(talk) 17:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Central discussion of objective criteria

Your feedback is welcome at Proposed Objective Criteria for TV Episode Notability.Kww (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I am thankful for your promt reply but I dont want to cheat I just need some help.Can you please give me some resoures to start out with.Thanks.Loperman2510 (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)loperman2510

Outside eyes

Hey, I am working with some other people to bring a horse article, Appaloosa up to GA status. As a person who has endured the GA process and lived to tell the tale, would you take a look at it? We are all horse aficionados plugging away at it, and so you are the perfect non-horse sort of person to give this a look-see, and if we are using a lot of jargon or making insider assumptions about a reader's knowledge base and/or otherwise making no sense whatsoever, you will be able to let us know (without being cruel). Just toss any comments you have on the talk page there, OK? And thanks in advance! Montanabw^(talk) 22:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Dark Materials Troll

I deleted his post and the responses from Misc. Desk and left a note on the Refdesk talk page.(Sorry - I didn't know how to do a link there to the offending post.) I suggested a block per Deltopia's comments. SpockMuppet (talk) 04:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ref on longe/lunge

I am trying to reach a reasonable compromise with the other editor on the longe/lunge issue. So I am sourcing the OED. Can you go to Longeing and insert a proper cite where I just say "Oxford English Dictionary?" Danke, mein freund! (to completely mix up the language!) Montanabw^(talk) 05:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ref on longe/lunge

I am trying to reach a reasonable compromise with the other editor on the longe/lunge issue. So I am sourcing the OED. Can you go to Longeing and insert a proper cite where I just say "Oxford English Dictionary?" Danke, mein freund! (to completely mix up the language!) Montanabw^(talk) 05:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

DYK notice

On 18 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sergeant James Graham, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congratulations! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of descr. of Jack's "You, too?" from Doctor (Doctor Who)

Concerning the article The Doctor, and specifically the section on romance, I noticed your deletion of the statement that Jack Barrow's "You, too?" to Martha Jones was a reference to Rose. In fact, your edit summary, "it's almost certainly not referring to Rose..." raised my eyebrows, as that was exactly how I took it. Curiosity is killing me: How do you all but dismiss Rose as the possible subject? Ted Watson (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The idea of the comment referring to Rose didn't cross your mind until you read the re-edit. That Jack fancies the Doctor did not cross mine until I read yours (and I still don't see it). As for why Rose, I just didn't see any other possible "suspects", and assumed he meant Martha had fallen for him as Rose had, that her feelings were unrequited simply not a part of his point. That's how I saw it and still see it, but concede the OR point, of course. Ted Watson (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I did try Torchwood (fortunately, we switched from local cable to Dish Network in late '05, so BBC America is available to me), but quit it three or four episodes into the first series. Wasn't enjoying it, felt I had better ways to spend my time--similar thing happened with The X Files, too. Ted Watson (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Village stocks

First time I noticed that. I've actually broken Wikipedia in a far worse manner once, but you'll have to dig a little bit deeper to find it. :-D east.718 at 03:28, February 21, 2008

Language desk

Thanks for restoring my tongue-in-cheek comment on the Language Reference desk. I am pleased to see that we can still have a bit of fun with our responses. HYENASTE 04:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Is a wonderful tool used and administrated by those who think they have an understanding of knowledge. College students will often use this site to fail their papers while those in the private sector read for countless hours in an attempt to impress others. The major problems, simple, that people are allowed to post or change ideas at will, allowing no single person, regardless of real knowledge, the opportunity to express themselves. Many things are un-cited and suffer from a lack of real editing and instead substatue copy-editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.26.253 (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox and thermal weapons

Hi Gwinva. Thanks for the link to your library – and I really appreciate that siege of Constantinople pic. You are more than welcome to to plug stuff into the sandbox. I'll put the article online in maybe a week and if you want to keep collaborating it would be great . --Geronimo20 (talk) 04:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh lovely stuff :op --Geronimo20 (talk) 02:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Pot-de-fer DYK

On 29 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pot-de-fer, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 22:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Smile

Seresin has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Just because :) I see your name often enough at the Language RefDesk, and you're always very helpful. You do a lot of good work, and it is appreciated. seresin | wasn't he just...? 05:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Early thermal weapons

On 1 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Early thermal weapons, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating vandalism

Sandbox vandalized. How the he-- did someone find that?? Nominate for "most creative attempt to find a page to vandalize" award. Montanabw^(talk) 23:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Stalkers suck. So far no one that I've pissed off has gotten that personal, at least, not more than once. Had my user page vandalized a couple of times, but by random people. Montanabw^(talk) 00:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Simeon Gravely and Field of Dreams

Hi Gwinva. My response to your post is on my talk page. Although you corrected your typo, I simply couldn't resist the beave/beaver comments, so I hope you take my response in good part.

By the way, I noticed you recently said you've never seen Field of Dreams. It is one of my 2 favourite films of all time, and I insist that you see it at your earliest possible convenience. I know people who've seen it and say "Yeah, so what!" - but bugger them. It touches a precious part of me as nothing else has ever done. And it has things to say about men's relationships with their fathers that a ton of learned psychological tomes could never capture. Maybe this says more about me and my dad than about the movie. Anyway, see it. I'd be interested in your response to it. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Early thermal weapons

You might like the similar History of poisons, which right now is at GA. I found that the style and tone was very similar. bibliomaniac15 I see no changes 00:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi there

I'm new to wikipedia and am trying to make some new friends.

Oh wiki your so fine your so fine you blow my mind (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Oh wiki your so fine your so fine you blow my mind (talk) 06:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Stuff that goes "boom" and stuff

Checked on early thermal weapons and I am impressed! Wow! Much cool stuff! The only thing I would do is to expand the intro some per the guidelines that an intro should hint at the majority of coming attractions, and maybe look at renaming the "FIre and Sword" section something simpler, (like "general history" or something equally boring) and maybe clarifying that section intro which seems a little too artsy and hence confusing, one wants to jump right to the nitty gritty. It's a bit more like a forward to a book or a jacket blurb than a section intro. (But I do like the boxed quotes!) Maybe the term "fire and sword" and that first sentence about Philip of Gloucester would be better as a dramatic conclusion to the intro, then leap straight into a history heading and go straight into "...The destruction of enemy possessions and territory was a fundamental strategy of war..." Just my opinion, do with it as you will. By the way, User:Ealdgyth is an excellent GA reviewer, knows medieval history, (and is nicer than me) can I ask her to take a look too? Montanabw^(talk) 05:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Brainstorming the Beastorn

First of all, happy non-Valentine's day! So that was you, rustling a Pentax behind the verdant knoll as I pursued the Beastorn? I should have known. Thank you! I may have to transport the dear image and its dearer caption to my talkpage. I of course have no user-page, per se, preferring to be an anonymous cyber-editor-without-qualities. But I may have to email you, if that will be acceptable, since there are one or two matters on which we should confer.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 22:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Stuff that goes "boom" as compared to stuff that drops manure...

Not a problem at all, it was a very interesting article to read. I'll call the favor in someday when I need fresh eyes on something! Ealdgyth | Talk 23:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Horses in the Middle Ages

Montana suggested I drop a note to you about this article. I'm thinking it needs to head towards FAC sooner or later, and she said you were the main writer. What are your thoughts on it? Also, the Wikiproject Equine is working on Thoroughbred, we were wondering if when we're ready for a final copyedit, we might beg one from you? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm home now, I was in vegas, so there were times I could respond and others when I couldn't. (Doing the horse show thing, of course). I'll look over the stuff tomorrow, that sound okay? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

And heading out again. I"m taking the long list of horse articles with me so hopefully I'll be able to read and digest them while I"m on the road. Should be back the 11th, but will have intermittant internet access while I'm on the road. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I'm playing there tonight. (Must...hide...from...PITA individual...making...life...miserable...AGAIN...in western equipment articles...LOL!) Round one was some assorted cleanup, round two will be some fumigation of the horse collar and other sections (CAMELS???). Will be stealing from Horses in warfare, stirrup, saddle and Horse collar articles, trying to not overkill, as they are the more detailed. Mucho fun stuff on stirrups and Charles Martel. Stay tuned. Feel free to argue over sources and yes, I need to pull some page numbers on books. Nag me). Montanabw^(talk) 04:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

When you dig out, see what I did...essentially, the progression was ox yolk, breastcollar harness, horse collar. If I put undue weight on anything, feel free to tweak. As for camels, note in the horse collar article, there is a discussion that basically says that the Chinese invented the horse collar, then tried it on camels, but horses used it first. What is missing everywhere is the precise route by which the horse collar arrived in Europe -- Ghengis Khan and his buddies demonstrated the usefulness of the stirrup, the solid-treed saddle was from the Romans, but not sure who brought the horse collar from China to Europe. circa AD 920 -- who was invading then? Montanabw^(talk) 05:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

All done for now, it's 1am here. Probably just compare your last edit and my last edit to compare everything. I made some significant changes to the horse collar section, but mostly just expended and rearranged the other tack/technology stuff, made a lot of tweaks all over, but more form than content (or just adding more material, your call if it's relevant verbiage or just verbiage!). Feel free to tweak, to add snarky hidden text where you think I went horribly astray and generally have a good time fixing everything I mucked up! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 07:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

early thermal weapons

We had some conversation about early thermal weapons in the articles A-class review. Currently I don't have the time to read more on the topic, but I will in a few months because I'm not that happy with your approach (doesn't mean its that bad, but there are improvements necessary for FA). The use of ballistae is new to me, about the onagers I knew already. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wandal was an early critic of Horses in warfare. His analysis process can be painful but he usually raises points worth considering. However, saying that, Wandal, Gwinva is my friend, so you be nicer to her than you were to me, you hear? Montanabw^(talk) 22:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Your *response: to the A-class review. It took my some time to read Nossov.

1. Stubby? What do you mean? I have tried to write concisely, yet also provide a good number of examples so people might build up a picture of what was going on and relate it to various situations. Do you feel the writing style is not worthy of A class? Or needs work for FA? Or do you feel each section is not sufficiently expansive? If I am to improve the article based on your criticism, I need a better idea of your concerns.

The sections should be expanded to provide more info, otherwise this reads like an agglomeration of stubs. It would be useful if you show the progress in the way technology became available and how long it took to be implemented. For example use of fire as anti ship weapon is documented for the Rhodians and the Carthaginians(Third Punic War), but it was limited to having pots with fire and blowing air to them. How long did it take to develop a system that spreads burnable liquids and so on.

1. "centred on mediterranean". I have tried to mix the examples up throughout the main body of the article, taking examples from China, India, Islamic world, Eastern Europe etc as well as the West, and consider it fairly balanced both geographically and across the time span. It is a massive topic and provides a summary of the types of weapons found throughout the world throughout the period (with a few, selected, examples to illustrate), rather than a detailed analysis of every development and every use in every country. However the concluding Later development section is, I admit, a little western-centred, but not exclusively so. In terms of improving this article to FA standard, this section could be made more comprehensive, but I do not consider its current status insufficient for A class recognition. ("A-Class articles are not expected to fully meet all of the [FA]criteria; an objection should indicate a substantive problem with the article.")

I think the idea of a balanced approach is quite good, but it should be more detailed and include more examples. I know that makes it more difficult for a casual reader who wants only limited information, but in my opnion A-class should provide exhaustive information. That your end is Western centered is OK, because the West became the region of the dominating military powers.

1. There might not be direct lineage between Greek siphons and modern flamethrowers, but the concept of using a device to deliver an inflammable liquid is the same. (I shall look at my wording to ensure this is made clear.) Early devices (such as, but not limited to, the siphon) threw inflammable liquids made from (variously) petrol, oil and naptha. WWI flamethrowers were devices to throw inflammable liquids made from petrol and oil (Haythornthwaite, p. 73) and modern flamethrowers use Napalm, from naptha. Sea or land? Well, the siphon was used at sea, but other devices were used on land. In modern times, flamethrowers are used at sea in close actions (which is the type of action used in early naval warfare). See, for example, [2], [3] and our own Flamethrower article (which also draws parrallels with Greek fire).

Please word it cautious since the Greek fire was not used on land. The Arabs had naphata troops in land combat, but they used something like normal or very big molotow cocktails, possibly with traces of salpetre (don't remember the source but I was online, so I will be able to retrieve it again). The Arabs also had devices that can certainly be called flamethrowers(for naval warfare as far as I know), so insert them to better show the "lineage".

1. The use of ballistae and other throwing machines in WWI may not have been widespread but it certainly occurred. The full quote from Nososv (pp. 184-5) is a follows:

   "During World War I, after several centuries of oblivion, various countries effectively used fairly small throwing machines resembling the onager or ballista (true, the torsion-spring was replaced by powerful springs) in trench warfare; they were used for launching high explosive shells and incendiary missiles into enemy trenches."

Nossov includes sketches of these machines, which are certainly onager and ballista forms. I can't show you these, but Commons has the following, different, example (right). Nossov goes on to describe British experiments with antique-style throwing machines in 1940 for throwing incendiary weapons at German tanks. In ref to WWI, Haythornthwaite also makes reference to "a number of ancient catapults and the like used in the early stages of the war" (p. 180). If you are interested in the later use of throwing machines, I am sure a search of texts will yield more examples.

Accepted, it is totally new to me, but sourced.Wandalstouring (talk) 08:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Assorted stuff

Looked at James Graham (soldier), the lead isn't working for me yet, I start out and go "why should I care who this person is?" and only learn later the specific "bravest man at Waterloo" data that would draw me into the article. Also felt that the intro to the Hougoumont section didn't quite set the scene. Coming into the article not knowing a lot about the Napoleonic wars or battle details, I felt I was coming into something in the middle. No image may hurt, though probably not fatal. Sources, coming from you, are of course excellent, I mostly tripped on the lead and had a hard time getting past it. Work on a bit more "sparkling prose" (yeah, I hate it when people tell me that, too! LOL!) But don't feel bad, the only biography that may be anywhere close to a GA tune up that I have worked on is, maybe Homer Davenport, if you want to peek at it and provide ideas where I could even begin to start. Montanabw^(talk) 04:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! flashing lights, lots of boldface some color-coded letters, extra large fonts, and hyperbole galore! LOL!!! Montanabw^(talk) 05:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, much improved. Now I read the lead and know why this guy is a cool dude! (LOL). The other sections are more understandable for a dweeb like me who might have hit the "random article" link. I suppose the wiki-nitpickers may now whine that you have more on the wars and leadup that doesn't directly address Graham, but it helped me considerably. I suppose if there is any evidence as far as "what was Graham doing during event XYZ" prior to Waterloo, that would be good to insert periodically throughout those sections. I like your changes! Montanabw^(talk) 18:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Pamela C. Rasmussen

Thank you for your very helpful comments, I've addressed some of them (not all yet). One thing I wanted to run past you was the status of the two external links. They are interesting, and give useful information not available elsewhere, but one is a newspaper article in the New Yorker, and the other is a non-peer reviewed article by PCR herself; I have therefore not used them as references. Am I being over cautious? Jimfbleak (talk) 07:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think I've addressed your concerns. In view of the numbers of changes and reorganisation, it's probably easier to read through from scratch than try to track my edits. I look forward to any further comments. it's been a steep learning curve (I knew should have stuck to bird articles (: ) Jimfbleak (talk) 13:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You were very kind, actually. I will send this to FA eventually, but I think it needs a bit more work yet, and some of the FA reviewers aren't so gentle! thanks again, Jimfbleak (talk) 05:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Edzell Castle

Thank you Gwinva for your considered and constructive review. I've addressed some of your comments, and I've asked Harrypotter, who also worked on the article, to see if he can address some more. Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Restoration Scotland

Hello, Gwinva. Have you had a chance to see my latest question on the Humanities Desk? Hamish MacLean (talk) 18:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

52nd (Oxfordshire) Regiment of Foot

What was the weaponry of the 52nd (Oxfordshire) Regiment of Foot? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 02:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

My regimental knowledge is pretty much during the Napoleonic wars (I'll have to research the other periods), but at that time they were equipped with muskets. Early on, there was some talk of providing rifles, but expected/perceived supply issues of rifled weapons caused them to stick with muskets. As you can imagine, this made for interesting skirmishing. The French were equipped with muskets also, so fire-fights probably took place at distances of about 50 yds! If you had nerves of steel, you'd wait for your opposite number to come within 10 yds. I'll add some weaponry and fighting tactics to the article, eventaully. It's all a bit rough at the moment. Thanks for the interest, anyway! Gwinva (talk) 02:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Light Bobs

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Light Bobs, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? —BradV 02:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a disambig page; but I've added references anyway. Gwinva (talk) 02:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The other option would be to make reference to the term in both the articles the disambig page links to, but this is probably cleaner. References in disambiguation pages is not without precedent, however, and certainly is not against guidelines. —BradV 02:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

52nd (Oxfordshire) Regiment of Foot

On 26 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 52nd (Oxfordshire) Regiment of Foot, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 07:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

TUSC token e09762045c2d5cffb61b01e33e46e508

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Two things...

First, you're doing a great job at British Army during the Napoleonic Wars. If you need another pair of eyes (or just an Eye), let me know ;)

Second, discussion is underway on the GA Reform proposals at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/Reform. Since you've shown an interest, your further input would be very welcome.

All the best, EyeSerene^talk 17:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

British Army during the Napoleonic Wars

On 9 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article British Army during the Napoleonic Wars, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Times archive search

Just in case you still have trouble with the site, here's what I can see from the Times (all you get before being asked to register):

Search: "Toulouse", 10 April 1814 - 27 April 1814

(1) London, Tuesday, April 26...
The Times | April 26, 1814
The King of FRANCE embarked at Dover about o
o'clock on Sunday, and reached Calais between fo
and five. Nothing could more fully serve to expose
wickedness of that policy which has so long made bit

(2) French Papers.
The Times | April 22, 1814
Nothing more clearly proves how guilty the
persons have [made?] themselves, who have dared
intercept the orders and the dispatches of Governme
since the 1st of this month, than the new and usel
effusion of blood which took place at Toulouse, on

(3) Supplement to the London...
The Times | April 18, 1814
A Dispatch, of which the following is an extract, h
been this day received from Lord Viscount Castlereag
addressed to Earl Bathurst :--
Paris, April 1[5?], 18
I have the honour to acquaint your Lordship, th
Monsieur [cannot read the rest of this line]

(4) At a late hour last night...
The Times | April 15, 1814
At a late hour last night, we received French pape
of the 21st, from which we have made the followin
extracts :--
PARIS, April 20,
"Letters from Toulouse announce that the Marsh

(5) French papers
The Times | April 26, 1814
To the day of the 10th, a day of glory for eit
army, a day of carnage for both, succeeded a period
alarm for the inhabitants of Toulouse. Few [asto?]
them had seen battles; they had only known t

Search: "Marquis of Wellington", 10 April 1814 - 27 April 1814

(1) Illuminations
The Times | April 12, 1814
As we have already stated, the public joy at
the glorious news was expressed last night by
general illumination. In the principal streets, eve
house contributed its share to this popular expressi
of delight, and some of the more striking edifices g

Search: "Wellesley", 10 April 1814 - 27 April 1814

(1) Court Circular
The Times | April 12, 1814
Sunday night Mr. EVERS, the Messenger, arrived i
town from the Hague. The Earl of LIVERPOO
waited upon the PRINCE REGENT yesterday morning
to lay before his Royal Highness the contents of th
dispatches.

Search: "Castlereagh", 10 April 1814 - 27 April 1814

(1) The London Gazette Extrao...
The Times | April 11, 1814
Dispatches, of which the following are copies, ha
been received from his Excellency General Visco
Catheart, and Lieut.-General the Hon. Sir Char
Stewart, addressed to Viscount Castlereagh :--
Paris, March 31
My Lord. -- The Emperor Alexander, with the Ki

(this search didn't bring up the April 18 dispatch)

FYI:

Search: "Marquess of Wellington", 10 April 1814 - 27 April 1814
Search: "Marshal Beresford", 10 April 1814 - 27 April 1814
Search: "Beresford", 10 April 1814 - 27 April 1814

0 results for all of these WikiJedits (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, thanks to you I'm very happy to have discovered that search service! Brilliant is the perfect word :) So glad you found the right dispatch, cheers WikiJedits (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I've posted a question or two on Montanabw's talk page, thanks again! Sandman30s (talk) 13:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Middle Ages sleep positions

Hi, I was intrigued by a remark in your answer to the Wallace height question on the Ref Desk that it became the custom to sleep sitting up during this period. I have an academic interest in the bed: was this position limited to knights (with a bit of trickle-down influence I'd imagine)? With out putting you on the spot I'd appreciate it if you had any references as part of my long long long term project to look at the history of the bed! Thanks. Mhicaoidh (talk) 04:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your generous, long and informative answer! Those references you gave me are more than enough for now. My interest stems from my research into NZ Maori dwellings which before contact were very low and used almost only for sleeping. There are also journal comments by explorers which mention Maori sleeping outside in good weather in a sitting position, wrapped in large capes of various sorts. I havent written this paper up yet, but it is interesting to hear parallels about sleeping posture and I will certainly use some of that info. Thanks very much again. Mhicaoidh (talk) 04:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, we crossed in cyberspace. I got that first book reference at Auck Library, very handy, my wife works there so I dispatched her to get it. And the library at Auckland Uni is excellent, so thanks again and watch out for my magnum opus on sleep positions which will be trialled first here in wikiland! Mhicaoidh (talk) 04:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The poor lost soul, don't they realise service is much superior on the Humanities Desk : ) Mhicaoidh (talk) 05:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Mary Mary

She has been dispatched. Actually Mrs M. has been the fiction manager of the whole Auckland system for years, those three listed as basement not for loan would be because she has astutely recognised their author's notability and set them aside in the Fiction Historical reference collection. They used to throw out some lovely first editions.... Mhicaoidh (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

alas those book jackets (two nicely illustrated, two not) revealed no additional info except other titles. Nothing as to author bio or pseudonyms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhicaoidh (talk • contribs) 05:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

wake for Mary question on JackofOz page. All welcome Mhicaoidh (talk) 02:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

hey I'm seriously considering shifting my PhD to Mary Studies! Mhicaoidh (talk) 03:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Who knows, the interest this is generating could well outstrip the subject of these Marian studies. John Lennon would approve, I'm sure. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Napoleonic articles

Copied from mrg3105's talk to keep conversation together:

Seeing you at the Napoleonic Wars page reminded me that I never replied to your email those weeks ago. Apologise for my rudeness. I agree that WP has a long way to go to reach accuracy and comprehensiveness, but a little encouragement that we're on the right track is always nice. Even if it just means we're the best of a bad lot! Anyway, thanks for the encouragement with British Army during the Napoleonic Wars. It's a bit of a secondary project for me; I really started out doing 52nd (Oxfordshire) Regiment of Foot (which is in itself a distraction from other things: I seem to have a few too many pots on the boil) and thought there should be some more background information, so I'm afraid it'll be slower progress than I'd like. Feel free to chip in. Gwinva (talk) 08:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gwinva. If you have a few "pots on the boil", then I have a veritable commercial kitchen going :) I am actually supposed to be editing and writing articles on the Eastern Front during the Second World War. However, I was taking a break from that, as it has proven to be positively exasperating due to the presence of individuals and groups in WP who are intent to hinder and promote their agendas regardless of the detriment it causes to the WP as a whole.

The Napoleonic period was an interest of my youth, and I decided to revisit. I was most surprised what I found, in particular with regard to the Imperial Russian Army, but of course others also. Of course I expected to find the British Army to be well covered, but unfortunately, and surprisingly, not well referenced at all. I will do what I can, but was wondering if anyone in the Napoleonic task force is active because I do believe that "many hands make light work", ok, not an exact quote :)

On a different subject, I am positively astounded by your article on Horses in the Middle Ages. Surely it is a better then a GA class effort? It was of course the time when modern horse breeding in Europe was born with the introduction of the breeds from the Muslim regions, and the realisation that selective breeding and record keeping would offer better results then chance crossing of stallions and mares. Some have argued that the attention needed in depicting horses in Art actually transformed the art of painting.

Sorry for the lengthy post

Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you found that, did you? HitMA is one of my pots: I'm trying to bring that to FA but got distracted. Another is Early thermal weapons, which is almost there, but has not had any input from me for a while. I like lurking on the fringes of Military History; the popular stuff is hard work: a real mess as far as prose, citations etc and far too much POV. Think WWII-stuff is bad? Look at Knight or Armour and weep. I don't know what the Nap. Wars task force is up to: some of the stuff is lacking. That British Army article should have been written years ago. Waterloo and all that, but nothing about how they actually fought it. Don't apologise for the long post: all good stuff. If you want to escape your kitchen for a while, drop in whenever you want. Gwinva (talk) 09:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, weep indeed. Over some opposition I got all the disparate articles on the troop types together, and decided to start at the top with artillery. I have actually stopped half way through fixing the citations because apparently editors don't know that a citation involves reading the work and not just adding its title to the article. I then moved on to the next article, Carabinier. The article said that the Carabiniers do not exist in the French Army! Whoever wrote that clearly does not appreciate regimental traditions since the reason the 11e Cuirassiers are retained as a 1-11e is to explicitly retain the traditions of the Carabiniers. Was it an assumption that only the British Army regiments retain a sense f history despite amalgamations? For example the article on Jegers failed to mention the Russian Army's fifty regiments.

In any case, I'm about done getting it to the start class, and will move on to the others. I feel that before the national armies are covered the reader needs to be able to gain some idea of the unique traits of the troop types that are bound to be mentioned in the future articles. After troop types I hope to do formations and tactics. However, I will take a long time because will be going back to the Eastern Front soon.

I agree that citation of sources is of paramount importance, and is also the weakest point of WP right now from MilHist perspective. I routinely now sort out the "references" which actually combine cited works and those that someone found a mention of and decided the title sounded about right for the article to back them up in inserting their point of view. Sadly there are man arguments going on about the phrasing of guidelines and conventions, and very little article improvement using these guidelines and conventions--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The older articles seem the worst for citations (can you believe that once even FAs didn't need inline cites?!). The text might have started off fine, once upon a time, but every man and his dog comes along, adds a bit and so on, until the page needs scrapping rather than salvaging. No wonder Fowler's "Best military history site" made you chortle in disbelief. If this makes you feel better (!!!) Mil Hist project is respected within WP for its rigorous assessment and citation requirements!! (See any of those assessment discussions you mutter about; plus the Mil Hist citation MOS is more rigorous than many of the others). Anyway, I potter on in my own corner; you, on the other hand seem to be running a one-man campaign to straighten it all out. Well done for attempting it! Gwinva (talk) 10:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes,well, quite frankly I had no choice. I had not used Wikipedia until about two years ago when someone stated quoting it at me in a Yahoo group. Unfortunately due to other commitments I was unable to even start considering to edit at the time, but just watched intently. What I was not aware of is the clique formation that goes on in WP which is somewhat foreign as a concept from the commercial environment I usually operate in despite the usual politics at work.

I just had a look at the Armour article. If it is defines as "protective clothing intended to defend its wearer from intentional harm in combat and military engagements, typically associated with soldiers." then the I am proven correct for my long time assertion that tankers are the first experiment in genetically modified organisms since they wear a 60ton MBT ;) Good thing no one from the naal task force had seen the article yet, or they may reconsider using the word to describe what batteships and armoured cruisers are made from :) Than there is all that "stuff" the fighter pilots liked to have around the cockpit during the Second World War :) Has the expression "knights of the air" never crossed any editor's mind as having more then a romantic notion to it? I will deal with it when I get to cuirassiers if no one beats me to it, however it seems to me at leas the intro needs to be rewritten--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

A Potemkin Village

ok, who's responsible for the amusing illustration of this article??? [[4]]. I just hope the Tsar doesn't find out. Mhicaoidh (talk) 12:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

since removed by a spoilsport who read a post just like this on Julia's page :-( Mhicaoidh (talk) 02:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Mary Club

Now e enabled! Mhicaoidh (talk) 05:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

52nd Foot

No problem - I knew keeping the Sheppard book around would prove useful eventually!

I rather like British Army during the Napoleonic Wars, incidentally, which fits neatly with something I tried doing a while back - Cavalry regiments of the British Army. There's room for a lot of these "historical" cross-sections, if only we find the time to write them... Shimgray | talk | 22:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

research about military history

There is an ongoing research about the military history project. Since you have edited within that scope, I thought you might be interested. The results will be published by the project in September.

Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

PS: I will work on early thermal weapons in July/August taking a copy with me on excavation.

Velology

On 1 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Velology, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 08:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist

Sorry. Its an abusive sock, about to be blocked. Why are my fans so very devoted? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No probs, though if I'd known they'd already abused you on your talk page I wouldn't have suggested they brought it here :). Still, you're not a true Wikipedian until you've developed your own fan club! (btw, I wasn't getting at you for your penultimate comments...I was just interested since I hadn't come across that useage.) Gwinva (talk) 08:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I already have my fan club, but wasn't expecting so vociferous an entry. :)

Regarding the 'penultimate' stuff - not worries - as I said, it's just a word. I always thought is was used as next to the end, as in right before the ending. A slightly different meaning has become popular, like how the original phrase "buck naked" (meaning, naked as a male deer) becoming mispronounced so often that now people say "butt-naked". It would render me a crabby old man to decry the loss of the word meanings. It was also make me something of a jerk. Words evolve. I just didn't think folk would continue the pile on after I agreed with the consensus. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

unknown artist

Thankyou for your input on Augustus Jules Bouvier looking over some examples of his art i think that its him.Anyway its a painting of 2 baby angels one is sitting on a spray of flowers while the other angel looks to be arranging them.Again thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigskimarche (talk • contribs) 19:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Albert Park Tunnels

Today, as I walked past a tunnel entrance (Waterloo Quad) I thought about taking a photo for the article. All long journeys begin with endless lengthy procrastination. Mhicaoidh (talk) 08:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That's something new I've learned today, to my profit (being an arch-procrastinator). I was always told that a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step, but what do those Chinese philosophers know?  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 08:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

As the Chinese have it, "House finish, man die." Gwinva (talk) 09:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel a rush of much-needed enlightenment coming my way. Not that it does one much good though - "Before enlightenment - chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment - chop wood, carry water". -- JackofOz (talk) 09:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Agrapheuses de bureaux

Nice image of deux agrapheuses de bureaux! This addition to my vocabulary will come in useful if I ever visit New Zealands Closest Neighbour (sorry Jack!). Mhicaoidh (talk) 10:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

see also Zealandia (continent).Mhicaoidh (talk) 10:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Re GA reform

OK, no problem - and thank you very much for your thoughtful input to the process so far. I'll try to get the draft done today so you can comment before you go off. If you want to wait until you're back before we put it to the GA community I don't think a week or two more would make much difference. EyeSerene^talk 10:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4