User talk:Gwinva

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

Horse info. Archive 1.Archive 2

Contents 1 DYK notice 2 Deletion of descr. of Jack's "You, too?" from Doctor (Doctor Who) 3 Re: Village stocks 4 Language desk 5 Wikipedia 6 Sandbox and thermal weapons 7 Pot-de-fer DYK 8 Smile 9 Early thermal weapons 10 Fascinating vandalism 11 Simeon Gravely and Field of Dreams 12 Early thermal weapons 13 Hi there 14 Stuff that goes "boom" and stuff 15 Brainstorming the Beastorn 16 Stuff that goes "boom" as compared to stuff that drops manure... 17 Horses in the Middle Ages 18 early thermal weapons 19 Assorted stuff 20 Pamela C. Rasmussen 21 Edzell Castle 22 Restoration Scotland 23 52nd (Oxfordshire) Regiment of Foot 24 Proposed deletion of Light Bobs 25 52nd (Oxfordshire) Regiment of Foot 26 TUSC token e09762045c2d5cffb61b01e33e46e508 27 Two things... 28 British Army during the Napoleonic Wars 29 Times archive search 30 Thank you

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Smile

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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) 06:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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, [1], [2] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] TUSC token e09762045c2d5cffb61b01e33e46e508

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Thank you

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