Talk:Raymond A. Palmer/Archive 2

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Fair use rationale for Image:17th Century Matchlock Musket.jpg
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 or , 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)

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)

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. 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)

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)

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)

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)

Sir Ralph Delaval
Heja, according to Rayment 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)

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&mdash;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)
 * I've changed the infobox again. We'll see how long it lasts before our compadres notice. Raymond Palmer 00:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for help with three maps
Hi! I am recently working on Battle of Greece; the main map there is taken from a site, where I could find no specific information about its copyright status, if it is free its commercial use etc. Anyway, I went to the French article, and I found there a French version of the map above created by a Wikipédian, and two more excellent maps:


 * Image:Bataille de Grèce09avril1941.PNG
 * Image:BatailledeGrèce15041941.JPG.

If these maps were to be added to the article, they would help it become of very high quality, and would also make my copyright worries disappear! I remember you had helped with the translation of a man in Cretan War's FA. How could I translate them to English? Could you help me? Thanks!--Yannismarou 09:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!!!--Yannismarou 11:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You mean you find a mistake in the map you created, because it looks OK to me.--Yannismarou 19:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Army of Epirus"! One day, you'll teach me how to do this stuff!! I now believe that maps is going to be my next hobby!--Yannismarou 20:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It depends on how you have also translated the other armies. If you have put Macedonian Army, then yes.--Yannismarou 20:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow! Great!--Yannismarou 21:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, thanks, a lot, and if you ever need my help for anything, don't hesitate to do it!--Yannismarou 08:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Vandal
He seems to have gone away for the moment; but, really, the only way to deal with such people is to simply revert them on sight. They're remarkably unlikely to stop just because someone asks, in my experience. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 16:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

War of the Spanish succession
Hello Raymond. What do you think of my suggestion on that talk page to start a Spain section in that article? I am willing to hear your comments either positive or negative, since I deem you as a very valuable editor there. I am going to ask Albrecht also. Mountolive | Talk 19:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * please place your comments in the relative talk page, so that there is some debate there. Thanks! Mountolive | Talk 20:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Re Peace: Triumph at last, eh? "Huzzah!", "Vive le roi!", and "¡España resucita!" all around. :) Albrecht 22:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:18th Century Grenadier hand grenade drill.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:18th Century Grenadier hand grenade drill.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. Renata 22:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded
Thanks for uploading Image:Anne-Jules, duc de Noailles (1650-1708).jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Anne-Jules, duc de Noailles (1650-1703).jpg. The copy called Image:Anne-Jules, duc de Noailles (1650-1703).jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 18:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:13th Helmet Badge 1900.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:13th Helmet Badge 1900.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 00:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:13th Cap Badge 1801.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:13th Cap Badge 1801.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 00:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Badge 13th Hussars 1880.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Badge 13th Hussars 1880.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Grrrrrrrr, it was a typo all along (Battle of Malplaquet). When I saw that it was red, I stared at it very hard, and I never caught that it was a transposition. D'oh, grr, and all other onomatopoetic expressions of consternation. Thanks for getting it. Geogre 02:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Siege of Malakand
I have addressed your points in the above FAC regarding Siege of Malakand, and would appreciate any further input you may wish to make. The map is continuing to be an issue, as it is very difficult to get a hold of one, but I have added a map to show the location of the NWFP in the mean time. SGGH speak! 14:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Update: I have added a map that shows the location of Malakand within the NWFP. SGGH speak! 18:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

....hello? The FAC has been quiet for ages... SGGH speak! 21:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've addressed those issues as well, and would be grateful if there could be more once over from yourself to help find and or fix remaining minor issues with the article with me? Appreciate it SGGH speak! 11:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Siege of Malakand
Thanks for helping out with your own edits :) it can become frustrating when all users do is highlight errors without taking them time to fix the odd type themselves. Wikipedia is a collective effort after all! Thanks again SGGH speak! 18:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)