User talk:Raymond Palmer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive: March 2005 – November 2006
[edit] Vandalism?
Hi,
I saw what you posted in the talk page of the War of the Spanish Succession article.
(1) You said: look at his last edit on the Battle of Almanza. This is worse than vandalism because the mistake he made, a very important mistake, will not be picked up by a casual editor.
Which is the important mistake I made? A very important mistake? Look, I edited the coats of arms from the Battle of Almanza article like 1 or maybe 2 months ago. And I re-edited it yesterday or so because Albrecht had removed it without any reason. That's all.
(2) Then you said: Now have a look at the infobox he added to the Siege of Barcelona. His incompetence personifies everything that is bad about Wikipedia.
I don't think I understand you... I got the information and the flags from the warbox that you can find in the same article of the Spanish and Catalan wikipedias: 1 & 2. I don't understand what's wrong with that.
So all in all you accuse me of two things: having edited the article Battle of Almanza two months ago, doing a very big mistake and taking an infobox from the Catalan and Spanish wikipedias to expand the English article (1 & 2).
What's wrong with that?
Oh, and about the Austriacist and Bourbonic factions in the War of the Spanish Succession article, I think I've explained it very well. You haven't refuted my arguments, you just insult me. At first, I added the factions without any reference, but Albrecht removed me all the time without any justification, so I re-added them again all the time. Finally, I decided to create the reference, in which other users contributed. And now Albrecht keeps removing the factions but adding an old version of my reference (which I don't understand, because (1) the reference is linked to the addition of these two factions and (2) if there is a new version of the reference why do you wanna add the old one?). It's a manipulation of what I wrote. And no one has explained why is that being done, you just remove it all the time, so I add it...
Onofre Bouvila 23:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cretan War
Yes, Raymond I think it is a great idea. Thanks! Kyriakos 20:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for making the map! Kyriakos 00:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Admiral Benbow
Don't know if it's of any interest to you, as the resident War of the Spanish Succession expert, but I wrote an article a while ago on Benbow's last fight, at Action of August 1702. Let me know if there's a better name for it, or if you have any suggestions for improvement. Choess 08:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Williamite war
No, not in the least. Please go ahead. I would have done it before but its difficult to accurately count the respective strengths and casualty figures. Keep up the good work.
Jdorney 16:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Maritime Aspects of War of Spanish Succession
Ray, cheers for the heads up re. you redoing above page. I have a primarily maritime background and if you'd like assitance on those aspects would be happy to help as much as I can.Inane Imp 10:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Battle of Ghazni
Hi There,
Just created this article, Battle of Ghazni during the First Anglo-Afghan War. I was wondering if you could fix up anything which is incorrect or add to this battle or link this battle to other articles so that it generates traffic. Thankyou. Mercenary2k 02:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Battle of Beachy head edit
Hello Raymond: of course you are right. I knew Victor-Marie d'Estrées commanded the rear-guard, but i didn't know about the colours. I have made the modification to 'white and blue'.
Congratulations with your first class articles ! I hope you don't mind the links and minor modification I've made.
Greetings, Filiep
Hello Raymond: I didn't find much on Ralph Delaval, he was in command at Beachy Head and he played an important part in the battle of Le Hogue (I made a link) . For the rest i just found a picture of him on http://bravebenbow.tripod.com/id15.html and a letter from him on http://www.cronab.demon.co.uk/let5.htm
Greetings, Filiep
Thanks Raymond. I am actually Flemish; so I can read French and German texts without great difficulties. And I also studied Spanish.
Greetings, Filiep
-
- Hello Raymond and Filiep: I'm horrible with names and am currently without my (meagre) reference library - requirements of the service prohibit - so wrt Ralph Delaval you probably know as much if not more than I. Sorry I can't be of much help at the moment. I'll let you know if I dig up anything. Inane Imp 07:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello Raymond, thanks for letting me know. I added a link to the Battle of Lagos (1693), and was confused for a while , because there is an other Ralph Delaval (Sir Ralph Delaval, 1st Baronet). His son, the second Baronet MUST be our admiral , no ? They are both from Northumberland , but the birth and death years don't match. Do you have any further information on this ?
Greetings, Filiep
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:17th Century Matchlock Musket.jpg
 |
This file may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading Image:17th Century Matchlock Musket.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 21:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Campaign history of the Roman military
Hello there. I believe that I have addressed your concerns over the above article that you raised at the FAC nomination debate page. Plesae could you revisit the article and nomination page and remove your oppose vote if you feel that your objections have now been met. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan 09:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Northern_Italy_1700.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Northern_Italy_1700.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MECU≈talk 00:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Because it's not being used. We don't need to keep images that aren't being used. Further, I saw no use for the image. I couldn't think of a use for a map of Italy in the 1700s. That doesn't mean it's true, but that was my reasoning. If you wish to oppose this, please do so at the IFD. --MECU≈talk 01:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Arleux
Hi, I'm aware of Chandler's argument regarding the fall of Arleux, however personnal I'm convinced by John Hussey's argument that the double and treble bluff theory of an initial master plan which unfolded perfectly acrossseveral weeks is in itself altogether too complicated. I cannot believe it. He goes on to comment that to suggest that Marlborough considered Villars to be a puppet with no will of his own would reduce Marlborough to the level of complacent and stupid generals. And that surely was not the case.
Hussey, J.: Marlborough: Hero of Blenheim, (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 2004), pages 227 - 232, quotes from page 232.
MartinMcCann 18:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Outmanoeuvred
The bot changed the spelling of outmanoeuvred to outmanoeuvered, whch is the US spelling. It's not a problem but I thought I'd let you know. Raymond Palmer 01:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Ray, thanks for that. There's no point in doing UK->US spelling changes without good reason, so I'll remove that one from the list. Cheers, CmdrObot 20:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] outmanoeuvring
Hello. Your bot reverted my spelling of outmanoeuvring again. Outmanoeuvring is the correct English spelling. Again, it's no real problem, but I think a few tweaks might be required. Raymond Palmer 19:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Curses. The last time it was 'outmanoeuvred', which I removed, but I didn't realise there was also a 'outmanoeuvring' in there. I've got rid of that now, sorry for the inconvenience. Cheers, CmdrObot 19:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sir Ralph Delaval
Heja, according to Rayment [1] the dates of the 2nd baronet are 1649 and 1696, while nothing what I have found regarding the admiral, indicates, that he was a baronet. Of course Rayment can be wrong, but I rather think that these are two different persons. I think also that the admiral could be either a brother or a nephew of the 1st baronet, whose father had twenty children. Greetings ~~ Phoe talk 19:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC) ~~
[edit] Re: Battle of Toulon (1744)
While I agree that Toulon didn't produce decisive results in the Nelsonian sense, I wouldn't go as far as to label it indecisive. With respect to the war in Italy and the control of the Mediterranean, I think the strategic impact of Toulon was very real and speaks for itself. Tactically, it's hard to justify "indecisive," considering that one side retreated and with heavier losses (compare Battle of Havana (1748)). I've often seen Toulon described as "an indecisive battle," etc. but keep in mind that our descriptive standards are not the same as a narration's (Hell, Waterloo has been called "indecisive"). Anyway, let me know what you think. Albrecht 22:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think we're pretty much in agreement on the historical facts, only we're emphasizing different points in keeping with our respective attitudes, sympathies, and concerns. In fact, it's probably better that we find common ground here, quietly, so we can present a united front when The Crazies™ get involved. As you know, I place complete trust in your judgment on these questions, so don't hesitate to make any changes you require.
- Anyway, I suppose the issue is really one of definition and consistency on our end. Of course, it's always safer to stick with the majority historical view—but how do we label engagements that ended inconclusively, but in favour of one combatant? (I mentioned Havana, one could also consider Málaga.) Voltaire manages to say, almost in the same breath,
| “ | Cette journée navale de Toulon fut donc indécise, comme tant d'autres batailles navales dans lesquelles le fruit d'un grand appareil et d'une longue action est de tuer du monde de part et d'autre, et de démâter des vaisseaux. ...Au reste, le véritable avantage de cette bataille fut pour la France et l'Espagne: la mer Méditerranée fut libre au moins pendant quelque temps, et les provisions dont avait besoin don Philippe purent aisément lui arriver des côtes de Provence... | ” |
- The problem is that our standards haven't been defined. I have zero prima facie objection to "Indecisive," but if Havana is a "tactical British victory" (a label I added myself) and Málaga is a "strategic Anglo-Dutch victory," then I hope I'm not being too unfair in suggesting that Toulon could reasonably be called at least a strategic victory for the Bourbons. But I'm open to the perfectly sensible option of reevaluating these earlier decisions and interpretations. Albrecht 18:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Good Lord, seeing the new round of edits at War of the Spanish Succession makes this would-be dispute of ours look almost pretty in comparison, doesn't it? Albrecht 04:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
