User talk:Pyrotec

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III.

User talk:Pyrotec/Header

Contents

[edit] Archives

Archive

Archives

Archive Index


[edit] Gunpowder

I should have taken your advice and kept away from 'the prehistory of gunpowder'. I'm really not ready for a 'discussion' like this (where flaming others to frustration is the norm, this is like a really disturbing discussion board) and yet I can't allow someone to just omit Encyclopedia Britannica just like that.

I have the 'Oxford History of Modern War' and the 'The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Firearms' ready for Europe. I doubt I'll be contributing much on this article given Meatwaggon's bullying. Can I mail you the quotes? I have a few copied/pasted and ready.

Vtria 08 (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Then I'll send the entire list at one go tomorrow. I have access to the 'Oxford History of Modern War' online but 'The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Firearms' is paper and print, which translates to slight delay. Vtria 08 (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Your e-mail is turned off. Here is some of what I was working on. Vtria 08 (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Pyrotec,
I just want to point out that the "Early gunpowder" section of the "military technology" entry of the 2008 Encyclopædia Britannica states that:

Chinese alchemists discovered the recipe for what became known as black powder in the 9th century AD; this was a mixture of finely ground potassium nitrate (also called saltpetre), charcoal, and sulfur in approximate proportions of 75:15:10 by weight. The resultant gray powder behaved differently from anything previously known; it exploded on contact with open flame or a red-hot wire, producing a bright flash, a loud report, dense white smoke, and a sulfurous smell. It also produced considerable quantities of superheated gas, which, if confined in a partially enclosed container, could drive a projectile out of the open end. The Chinese used the substance in rockets, in pyrotechnic projectors much like Roman candles, in crude cannon, and, according to some sources, in bombs thrown by mechanical artillery. This transpired long before gunpowder was known in the West, but development in China stagnated. The development of black powder as a tactically significant weapon was left to the Europeans, who probably acquired it from the Mongols in the 13th century (though diffusion through the Arab Muslim world is also a possibility).

In other words, even within the 2008 edition of the Britannica alone, we have accounts which differ with regard to what century gunpowder was invented, whether the Chinese put it to military use, and what role the Arabs had to play.
In other words, if you're going to remove "challengeable" material from Britannica's "explosive" entry (pun regrettably intended), the "military technology" entry in the very same edition of the very same encyclopedia challenges that account in almost every detail.
JFD (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I was getting a bit p*ssed off. There is an edit war on Gunpowder and the History of gunpowder
I noticed, and after my experience at Tea, I made a point of staying the hell out of it :)
JFD (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the book:

Jeremy Black is Professor of History at the University of Exeter. His books include Why Wars Happen (1998); War and the World 1450–2000 (1998); Warfare in the Eighteenth Century (1999); and Britain as a Military Power 1688–1815 (1999). War—Past, Present and Future will appear later this year.

Vtria 08 (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi,
After having revert warred with me and user:Ammar shaker, Meatwaggon has now undone your edits:
I'm just going to walk away. Reading and copying/pasting from any book only to have it blatantly undone and then listen to rubbish on the talk page I can't take anymore.
PS: I can e-mail you scans of the pages for your reading (on Europe). Unfortunately, that's the best I can do under the situation.
One has to have extraordinary temperament in a place like this. Best of luck in keeping this place sane,
 :-) Vtria 08 (talk) 08:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vtria 08

Yep, he's a sockpuppet. JFD (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Transport in Glasgow

Hi! I notice that you have reverted my edit in the Transport in Glasgow article. In your edit comment, you say the {{future uk public transportation}} template was re-added as per MoS. I am curious, what part of the Wikipedia Manual of Style do you refer to? --Kildor (talk) 21:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your comments. I've seen it in the past but I'm having trouble refinding it. Wikipedia:NOTCRYSTAL; Wikipedia:Current and future event templates and Category talk:Future events are the best that I can come up with, at the moment.Pyrotec (talk) 08:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, none of these are guidelines that endorse the use of such templates. And I am pretty sure you won't be able to find one. The templates are used because some users think they should be used, and not because there is a guideline that say so. --Kildor (talk) 09:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
There are a number of possibilities: (1) you could be right, there may be no guidelines; (2) my attention was first drawn to these templates round about December 2006 / January 2007, but I might have mistaken another editor's decision for a guideline, but I think I would have checked the validity; (3) the guidelines may have changed in the last year; (4) there may be guidelines, but I have not found them yet.
Whilst this is not proof, heated discussions took place here Talk:Glasgow Central station#Future public transportation?. The argument was over the consequences of adding the flag, e.g. over the categorisation resulting from the use of the flag, not the need for a flag.
It appears that your objections to the use of the flag could be summarised (based on your edit summarises) as "stating the obvious". Are you attempting to remove all the flags or are you making a point about one that you removed and I reinstated?Pyrotec (talk) 09:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I can hardly remove all the flags myself. But I intend to remove some flags I consider useless and superfluous. It is not about making a point - it is simply a matter of improving articles. Unless you can find a policy or guideline that states that the templates should be used, I believe it is up to editors to decide if it is needed or not. --Kildor (talk) 10:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anglesey Central Railway

Thanks for the assessment you made to the article. You mentioned that you felt it required further copyediting. Could you tell me which areas of the article need this treatment, or possibly give a few examples? Thanks. Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 13:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just realised that you've made some improvements already. It's all good stuff, but if you have any other reccomendations, I'm eager to hear them. Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 13:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page. Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gunpowder

Oh, Sorry, I did not know that. It was abruptive to me, and looked very much like vandalism. I obviously need to read up about guano :-) Johan Dahlin (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 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) 01:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sparkford

Hi Stewart, Sparkford, is near Yeovil in Somerset. Perhaps in Scotland, it is regarded as being near to Wellingborough, but it is certainly not in Northamptonshire. Can I suggest that you look at Jowett - its the ISBN page before the Title page.Pyrotec (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I am totally confused as to why I thought Sparkford was in Northamptonshire - perhaps it was because I noted that one of the books was printed in Northamptonshire. Also making these sort of changes whilst in an airport lounge 1,000 miles away from the book I have is not a wise move. I have now checked the book and most definitely agree with you. Thanks for making the changes to the citation templates - this also justifies having these templates. --Stewart (talk) 21:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Are there any other PSL books I have mis-located. I will have invariably copied one PSL book template to create another. --Stewart (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick Stephens Ltd (PSL)

I think this entry on World Cat is part of the reason for my confusion, also the edition of the Atlas I have is a Guild Publishing edition. --Stewart (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I have also noted that PSL seems to have been based in the Wellingborough area at some point, however are now in Somerset - probably when taken over by Haynes. There might even be a Wikipedia article in the history of PSL. --Stewart (talk) 22:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)