User talk:OliverH

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gunter hat mir soeben mitgeteilt, dass du entsperrt wurdest de:Benutzer Diskussion:Gunter.krebs --Umschattiger 13:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Ja, er hat auf meine Mail geantwortet. Aber von hier komme ich immer noch nicht rein. Er hat aber schon vermutet, dass da eine IP-Sperrung vorliegt, wie ich auch vermutet habe. Ich hab ihm jetzt die IP hier gemailt. --OliverH 13:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Dickbauch ist offenbar gründlich vorgegangen...--Umschattiger 13:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
PS. Es geht doch nichts über dynamische IPs ;)
Das hier ist ein Dienstrechner.... Witzig war aber mal, als in einem Forum kurzerhand mein ganzes Institut IP-gesperrt wurde, ich von zu Hause aber noch hätte einen neuen Account aufmachen können ;) "Gründlich" würde eigentlich heissen, dass man mal den DNS abfragt, WEN man da eigentlich sperrt.... Ich weiss nicht, ob die damals in ihrer Gründlichkeit nicht sogar die gesamte Max Planck Gesellschaft gesperrt haben... Manche Leute haben eben etwas gegen Sachkompetenz.... ;) --OliverH 13:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Max Planck? Nie gehört! Fiktiv! Löschen! Benutzer:Dickbauch nene, das war natürlich schon ich, der auch schon mal was von Planck gehört hat ;) --Umschattiger 14:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Newbies and understanding

Hi, you don't know me but I just saw you write this to User:Tony Spencer, who you might not know is a Wikipedia:newbie:

Could it be you have problems understanding what "global" means in this context?

If all you meant was that you disagreed with his use of the word "global", then you might have phrased this in a more friendly way. A phrase like you have problems understanding could be interpreted as calling him a "dumkopf" (or "dummy"). I don't think you meant it this way, though. Am I right? :-) --Uncle Ed 18:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to WikiProject Middle-earth!

Hello, OliverH!

Thank you for joining WikiProject Middle-earth and contributing to improve Tolkien-related articles. We are glad to have you join in the effort!

Here're some good links and subpages related to our WikiProject.

If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to ask on our talk page.

Thank you for your contributions and have fun editing! —Mirlen 00:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Out-of-Universe

Oliver, I was just using the Gandalf line as an example. You can replace "wizard" with as complicated a characterization of Gandalf as you can find in Tolkien. My point is that you can talk about everything that's in a book from an out-of-universe perspective--you just have to talk about it from the outside.

I've been working a lot on Cthulhu Mythos stuff lately, and with Cthulhu Mythos it's all about the little details of the various gods and secret books and whatnot. I don't want to get rid of that stuff at all--but I do want to talk about it as having occurred in such-and-such a story written by such-and-such an author. To me, that's much more interesting and useful for the fans. Check out Severn Valley for an example of what I consider a good out-of-universe article on a Cthulhu Mythos subject.

The idea that Wikipedia shouldn't dwell so much on the details of imaginary universes is a separate argument that has nothing to do, really, with in-universe or out-of-universe. Nareek 01:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this clearly shows where your misconception is. Severn Valley is basically a list of tidbits. It's an endless list of descriptions of the locales, that doesn't tell you anything about the function of the locales on a literary level. And there are very much "in universe" passages: "In the 19th century the island became associated with a series of shocking mutilations. Victims, only some of whom survive the ordeal, began with witchcult follower Joseph Norton in 1803, followed by Severnford clergyman Nevill Rayner in 1826, an unnamed prostitute in 1866 who was taken to Brichester Central Hospital, the folk customs investigator of 1870 Alan Thorpe, a Brichester University student in 1930, and Mercy Hill paranormal researcher Dr. Stanley Nash and his son Michael (the latest victim) in 1962." However, the article doesn't provide any analysis at all, nor context, it's basically a list in continuous text. It puts a lot of raw data on the reader's plate and tells him "Now chew". This is not what I consider a good encyclopedic article. It conveys data, not really knowledge. Notice how Severn Valley only references anthologies and primary texts? Compare, for example, with Tom Bombadil, which references secondary literature and uses Tolkien's letters. It explains the role -or lack thereof- of Bombadil in the story, what led to his conception and what might be his function. --OliverH 07:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"I think this clearly shows where your misconception is" is a little hostile, don't you think?

The Severn Valley article is intended to be useful for people writing stories set in Campbell's Severn Valley, for role-players with games set there, etc. I think it succeeds in doing that despite it being clearly an article about a fictional setting and not an article that pretends that setting is real.

Not every sentence contains a phrase like "in the story," it's true. I hope it's clear at every point, though, that the information does come from a story, and you should be able to figure out which story it is.

I agree that the article could use more references to literary criticism of Campbell's setting--if I knew of some, I'd put it in. It's not, however, our role as editors to provide analysis--that's called original research. The information I was able to find about the real-world factors that led to the creation of the setting--Derleth, Campbell's post-war experiences--is in there.

Nareek 13:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It is only original research if the analysis is ours and not published in the secondary literature. You make your intention quite clear, however, I do not think that the task of an encyclopedia is to be a "writer's bible", but rather to give the gist of story or story element. Why is the story extraordinary? Why is the character/location essential for the story or what essential things do they contribute? What intentions or experiences of the author reflect in the character/location? Take a look at http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9040818 Here, the Britannica at one point even talks about "Watson's narrations", which is 100% in-universe, since those aren't really Watson's narrations, but rather Doyle's. I don't doubt that one can write a "Writer's bible" -especially for RPGs- in the way you propagate, but I simply don't think it's what an article in an encyclopedia should look like. It's an acceptable article if there is no literary criticism. But it is poorer for the lack. --OliverH 15:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
You know, I think that I may have gotten your argument mixed up with another editor's arguments--someone who was maintaining that WP should serve the fan community, and that to do so one has to write from an in-universe perspective. So I think I was addressing some arguments to you that weren't really responsive to where you were coming from. I would not have pointed you to Severn Valley if your concern was not just about the out-of-universe perspective but about the amount of detail about fictional universes in Wikipedia in general.
We may disagree about how much detail is too much, though I do agree there is such a thing as too much. I also think getting literary criticism into the Cthulhu Mythos articles is worthwhile and interesting--I've got a couple of collections of Lovecraftian criticism whose insights I'm trying to work into the relevant articles. Unfortunately, I haven't seen too much on Campbell, who's to my mind one of the more interesting Mythos writers; when I find it, I'll put it in. Nareek 17:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tours

OliverHHey Oliver, you said when you removed the word "rare" that it was not rate for medieval infantry without bows or firearms, or pikes, to withstand amoured cavalry. I am curious - what other occaions were there where mounted and mailed cavalry were held off by infantry with no bows, firearms, or pikes? I don't know of any - what are they? (With pikes, the Swiss and Scots proved it could be done, and with bows, well, we all know what bows or crossbows could do to armour! But at Tours, the Franks had none of those, no bows, no pikes, no firearms - again, if there is another incident, we would sure like to know of it. Thanks! old windy bear 23:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
A horse will do a lot of things. Running into what it perceives to be a solid wall is not one of them. The Franks had no pikes, but they had shields, and that's enough. The Saxons at Hastings also had spears at best, not pikes, but their shield wall held all day. The Godendag so common at the Battle of the Golden Spurs, while a pole arm, also is not a pike and certainly shorter than lances of the time. But it IS enough to cause serious harm to any horse or rider running into it. The key point is that a cavalry charge needs a "soft" target. Thus it either has to attack from the flank or the rear of a formation not capable of defending in that direction (which requires more discipline than a lot of medieval infantry had, scottish Schiltrons notwithstanding) or a formation in disarray. If you charge into a shield wall, even if you kill a bunch of guys with your lance, your horse is very likely to stumble over them, taking out a very expensive tool for good at best and sending you helpless into the middle of your enemies at worst. And that's IF you can actually convince your horse to do something it would perceive as plain suicidal. Even IF they'd want to retreat, they can't, because there's folks behind them. So the Hastings way, breaking a wall by having people run after you, i.e. forward is way more likely to be successful. And in Hastings, that effort was aided by the actual use of archery by the Normans which brought disorder into the Saxon ranks. To make a long story short, as long as infantry was keeping its discipline, there is barely any record of them actually NOT being able to stand against a cavalry charge. In fact, some people go as far as saying that cavalry without firing power of its own (i.e. horse archers etc.) had next to no power against a determined infantry. Consider this: If infantry without pikes is of no use whatsoever, how come the Franks continued to use it long after Martel despite having cavalry? Why did they even instruct their riders to carry both a long and a short sword so they could be used on horse and on foot?
That's one thing. The other is that cavalry is useful practically exclusively on the open field. Have you ever seen a horse run up a castle wall? But sieges and assaults on fortresses were the major events that decided medieval campaigns. Which is why stressing things about open field battles really gives a wrong impression of medieval warfare to begin with. Take a look at http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/mcglynn.htm --OliverH 01:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
OliverH Hey Oliver, I am not trying to be smart or argumentative, but you are right in part, and wrong in part. Hastings is a great example. The shield wall did hold all day, and then failed because mainly they did not hold formation. (the bows the normans had did give the coup de grace when an arrow hit Harold in his eye, but they had doomed themselves when they ran after the knights)

You were also right, and it was an excellent article, so thank you, that siege warfare determined most medieval wars. Tours was a really rare exception, where an open field battle did play a crucial role - most of them those kinds of battles did not. Those points of yours were well taken, and I did really appreciate the article, and marked it for future use. THANKS.

But you are wrong that it was virtually an everyday thing for infantry to display that kind of discipline on the rare occasions open field battles did decide things. Respectfully, you have to name a major battle, just one, where a shield wall held without pikes or bows. And there is not one, other than Tours. Usually the infantry, at some point, simply broke and ran. Yes, they could hold if they had courage and discipline - but bluntly, the vast majority fo the time, Hastings was what happened. And what made Tours all the more extraordinary was that the Muslims had some pretty decent mounted archers as well - and the Franks had none. Anyway, you were dead right on two points, but not right on the third, (I don't believe). But thanks for talking to me so politely, and for the good information in the article. It is nice, (but rare, alas) to find someone on wikipedia you can disagree with, and do it with an interesting and informative discussion.

Hey Oliver, a great book on medieval warfare is Bennett, Bradsbury, Devries, Dickie and Jestice, Fighting Tehniques of the Medieval World . Take care...old windy bear 01:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"The vast majority of the time, Hastings is what happened". What happened at Hastings? At Hastings, the Saxons had practically WON the battle. It is not even clear whether the Normans were indeed using a feigned retreat or were actually fleeing but regrouped upon seeing their chance. They had tried for the entire day to break the shield wall and failed. It was only when the Saxons were tired and the Normans had started to shoot arrows OVER the shield wall that discipline started to fail. Whether Harold was actually hit by an arrow is not even clear because some sources say he was slain in melee. I pointed you at the Battle of the Golden spurs. There's many other examples. Heck, the catalan Almogavars were mainly skirmishers, but the Grand Company not only faced down a charge in Greece, they massacred the knights. If you are on the right terrain, a charge has little effect -this was also the case at Courtrai. Again, if infantry didn't work that way, it would have been abandoned. Tours was not an unusual lineup for the time, it was a standard way for frankish armies to act for long after. And the Franks won many more battles. They'd secure the flanks with cavalry where they needed to, but again, "knights", if you want to call them that, were supposed to be ready to dismount and fight on foot. Check out Bachrach's "Early Carolingian warfare" for some examples of other battles. You seem to miss that in consequence of the concept of "imitatio imperii", that is an imitation of the lost roman empire, reliance on roman tactics was quite high. Indeed, Rhabanus Maurus wrote a commented and updated version of Vegetius' De re militari. --OliverH 07:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey Oliver. Yes, people wonder why Charles dismounted his cavalry and had them fight on foot - that was very common among the franks. The Grand Company, they massacred practically everyone who fought them. Hastings, they lost because they did not keep their position - they are fairly sure about the arrow, but you are right that they are not positive. old windy bear 09:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grüezi!

Hallo Oliver

Danke für deinen Eintrag auf .als. Wie du siehst, bin ich nicht weg, habe aber den Kampf gegen Windmühlen (sprich: selbstgerechte anarchistische Admins) aufgegeben und mich Nützlicherem zugewandt. Klar wünsche ich dir viel Glück bei der Novartis! Und Basel ist eine schöne Stadt! Wobei, noch ein Deutscher mehr in der schönen Schweiz... ne, nicht ernst nehmen. Zudem folgst du ja eh nur der Mehrheit der deutschen Auswanderer, falls du den Job kriegst. Und in ein paar Jahren klappts dann auch mit dem alemannischen ;). Btw., falls du einen Tipp brauchst wegen Basel: Nur fragen! --Umschattiger 19:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Mal schauen, mit dem Auswandern. Schließlich hat man bei Euch die Wahl gleich zwischen drei Ländern -fast wie ein Überraschungsei ;) Nee, erstmal abwarten, ob ich den Job überhaupt bekomme, und wo genau der Einsatzort ist, dann schau ich mir in Ruhe an, was mir am sinnvollsten erscheint und komme dann ggf. auf dich zurück. Hab jetzt schon zwei Vorstellungsgespräche diesen Monat gehabt und das bei Novartis und ein anderes stehen noch aus, da wird hoffentlich endlich was für mich dabei sein, und dann sehen wir weiter. Hatte bei Roche in Grenzach auch eine Bewerbung laufen, aber da wurde leider nichts draus. Bei Novartis ist es auch meine soundsovielte, aber irgendwann muss man ja Glück haben :) --OliverH 19:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
stimmt, du könntest ja auch im Kreis Lörrach deine Zelte aufschlagen... Auf alle Fälle toitoitoi! ;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Umschattiger (talk • contribs) 22:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC).