User talk:Merlinme

Welcome

Welcome to the project. Anyone who makes a comment about the Battle of Crécy is all right by me. Copyediting work is very valuable, and medieval articles are particularly poor, many having been copied optically from old encyclopedias, I think. It's a daunting task, but everything's in its infancy. If you need to know anything, do ask, though I can't guarantee I'll know the answer. Cheers.qp10qp 19:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Ally Sheedy

I ran to the first person I saw on the 'recent changes' list for articles tagged for spam. There's a serious edit war brewing up at Ally Sheedy, and I don't beleive I'm capable of solving the debate by myself. I might have already broken the 3RR rule! Help me out if you can. - ¡Kribbeh!^Speak!\_Contribs 17:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Bah, sorry for bothering you. Somebody has stepped in. - ¡Kribbeh!^Speak!\_Contribs 17:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire

There is nothing to discuss as the problematic point of the sentence (west-east comparison) is fixed. The culturalist (who thinks ottomns are medivial barbarian empire) approach that blames "Oriental dogmatism" and "Islamic mentality" for the neglect of the scientific and technological achievements in the ottoman empire has been questioned as the collections on this subject are getting richer. For more content on this topic the person(s) or you have to do a library search. This answer cover your interest. Hope I was helpful. Thanks--OttomanReference 16:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

being bold

Often a good thing, although in that particular case I wanted to make sure the order didn't have some internal logic of it's own. I was raised Catholic, but I'm not anymore, and wasn't sure if there was an order the sins were usually listed in. But thanks for changing it - I kind of forgot about it. Natalie 17:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

RE: Battle Of Agincourt

I find your version of Agincourt disturbing since it bases it's self on one book by Anne Curry, a book I have read. Near every other book differs to her version, same as most historians, Television programmes on this matter use the numbers (roughly) that I give.

I refer mainly to the numbers of the French, for a start if the French Vanguard is as small as you say, then there would be no tightly packed ranks going into the defile. So the idea that the French were tightly packed going into the English is made up.

I would like to continue this discussion, however I do not have the time right now, until we come to an agreement I shall now alter the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.43.170.96 (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

RE: Agincourt

Thank you for entering into a discussion about Agincourt. However, quite apart from the fact that the numbers used in the article now suggest a range, reflecting the fact that there aren't any definitive primary sources for the numbers, by reverting to a very old version you destroy all the work that has been done on the article since. Also, there are many spelling and grammatical errors in the version you revert to, and many examples of highly dubious claims (e.g. putting up two fingers to the French).

If you particularly object to the figures used, please start a new section on the Agincourt discussion page and we can talk about it, and hopefully reach some community consensus.

Thanks,

If you wish I shall make a list of propsals to change to the current version of The Battle Of Agincourt?

However to the claim of the two finger insult, it is thought by most modern historians that it was used there. But it was not invented there or at any point in the conflict, instead only taken from an old archer insult from centuries earlier and then re-used in the conflict and battle to lure the French to attack the lines with insults and one or two flights of arrows.

Cheers

P.S. Sorry about the spelling mistakes here, in a rush. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.43.170.96 (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Commons:user:merlinme

I assert that I am the same user as Commons:user:merlinme.

--Merlinme 17:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of "polemical" on TGGWS

You asked why Ed removed "polemical". See here. Raymond Arritt 15:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess that explains it. I did find it rather strange how we could have all that discussion (and Uncle_Ed agreed there was a reasonable source), and then goes and reverts it after the page is unprotected. --Merlinme 15:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverts by UBeR

Hi. I've had a number of edits reverted by User:UBeR. Most recently, I changed a POV "observed" to "claimed", and the description of Patrick Moore from "environmentalist" (very much disputed) to "environmental consultant". These were reverted. Rather than get into a revert war, I thought I'd point it out to you and see if you thought one version or the other was better.JQ 07:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm afraid I'm going to actually agree with UBeR on this one. Moore's own Wikipedia article describes him an "environmentalist", so that seems fair enough. We've already noted that he now criticises Greenpeace, and if people follow the link they will find out what his current views are (which I guess he would characterise as about 'sustainable development'). As for "claimed" or "observed" that attacks were character attacks and ad hominems, a lot of them were like that, especially at the time the quote is taken from (4 March), which was before the programme had been broadcast and before people had assembled arguments against it. I think if people read the reaction in total, they can draw their own conclusions as to the reliablity of the programme and its maker. --Merlinme 08:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm having more revert problems with User:UBeR. Following up Monbiot's characterisation of TGGWS as a "the same old conspiracy theory", I found out that C4 had broadcast a program with the title "The Global Warming Conspiracy" back in 1990, with many of the same claims (though they've backed down on some points) and speakers. I included this point in the intro, and UBeR deleted it, saying it didn't belong there. I reverted and suggested he move it elsewhere, which he did, with the section heading "Unrelated Trivia". I changed that to "Related Programme", and left it at the bottom of the article where UBeR had put it. He then deleted the section. I'm afraid I find it hard to Assume good faith hereJQ 01:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

I agree with you on this one. The information should go in somewhere. I'm not completely happy with the way it's currently presented, but I don't think UBeR's delete was helpful. If I have time I may try to fit it into the article better.--Merlinme 10:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

TharkunColl

Have to go now, but you should check edits by TharkunColl to The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle OldDigger 08:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've been working my way through, it looks like most have already gone, but I'll double-check. --Merlinme 08:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Editing down

Thanks for taking the trouble to edit the Mark Henderson stuff. I thought it was notable, and couldn't immediately see anything better than dumping it all in. It reads better now, though I'm concerned that readers have to know which claims are being referred to. JQ 10:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No probs- I think my views on TGGWS are fairly clear, however we do have to be careful to be as fair as we can be to both sides. I personally think that anyone who actually takes the trouble to read the article properly can only really reach one conclusion, unless they prefer conspiracy theories to science. --Merlinme 10:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note

Just a heads up that my substantive response is on my Talk page. RonCram 00:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Original Barnstar
		For painstaking and unfailing attempts to forge consensus in even the most hopeless-looking situations William M. Connolley 21:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I was just going to drop by and leave a noting thanking you for your efforts on TGGWS when I realised you deserved a bit more than that. I'm also going to back off there a bit for a while and give it a chance to settle down, since I'm better at the science than the politics anyway William M. Connolley 21:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks! I'd like to believe we can write a good article on the programme. As someone who initially found it quite convincing, I think it's important that we write as accurate an article as possible- respecting Durkin's right to start a debate, but also pointing out to the reader that he's talking utter tosh a lot of the time. Hopefully we'll get there in the end... --Merlinme 23:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

?

Why do I have COI editing TGGWS? [1] William M. Connolley 09:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The perceived conflict of interest is in adding (or defending) the reference in the TGGWS article to a blog you had co-written. It's the same as if you were defending a particular quote for use on your biographical Wiki article. Now we both know that everything you helped write in the blog is true, and I'm not sure you do really have a conflict of interest- RealClimate is a good source. But why give anyone ammunition to attack the TGGWS article as biased, or using unreliable sources? Now that even Friis-Christensen has disowned the programme and said "it's obvious it's not accurate", all that's left in the programme is same vague claims about the influence of environmentalists on research funding and African development. I can't think of a single scientific claim TGGWS makes which has not been shown to be wrong, or even falsified. If people trust the Wikipedia article's neutrality, they can read it and reach that conclusion themselves. I want to remove any suggestion of bias or conflicts of interest. --Merlinme 09:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh right - yes I accept the perceived in that case. I read your comment as applying to the entire article William M. Connolley 10:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I've replied to your question on my user page. IMO William has an extreme COI: It's not "perceived" at all. The article about TGGWS on realclimate.org did not actually challenge the facts which the programme presented - just the interpretation of these facts. Any interpretation has bias but most of the realclimate interpretations even lack basic logic - most particularly their ludicrous explanation of the ice-core records (that CO2 feedback was more important than the initial driver) - you talk about tosh; there's tosh for you! - and the unproven, completely guessed aerosol argument to explain the 1945/1975 cooling. Furthermore the minor graphical errors did not change the arguments of the program at all, and Friis-Christensen should surely have seen that the interpretation of his graph was an easy error to make. Please read it again with a more objective eye and then perhaps use that same eye to scan the over-simplifications and downright falsehoods of "Inconvenient truth". This is what debate is about - don't help anyone shut it down. Where does anyone get the idea that only one factor controls climate anyway? Why can't there be several factors, the sun being one of them? Answer - no reason at all! (JG17 17:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC))

Agincourt article

Hi I have deleted the sentence, I wrote it because in an informal talk with French colleagues they all agreed on the research method of Anne Curry, but I have not found any French academic review of her work. As you probably know, there is a striking opposition between mainstream publications, relying basically on narrative and secondary sources, and academic works, with extensive research on documentary sources. That is my point of interest in the Battle of Agincourt article, as you can check I have already written on the problem of the sources for army figures in my article on the Military Revolution As soon as I have time, I would like to write a new chapter about an analysis of the sources for the battle, both narrative and documentary, and I will post there examples of other figures given in documentary records for both English and French armies in the period that show a remarkable consistency and are widely discrepant with the exaggerations of many of the narrative sources.Aryaman13 —Preceding comment was added at 16:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sure your intentions were good, and it may well be the case that Curry is proved correct in ten years time. However, we are only allowed to report Verifiable information, and at the moment I am not aware of significant published support for Curry (although I am happy to be proved wrong). The only significant reaction I am aware of (from Barker) is negative, as she questions whether the French documents are complete enough to support Curry's approach.

Could you expand on your point please that "The French figures are consistent with all other documentary evidence for the period about French armies, before and after the battle of Agincourt"? I'm not completely sure what it means; does it mean, (for example,) that Curry's figures are consistent with the size of French armies raised on other occasions? Or does it mean something else (and if so, what?) Again, to be Verifiable, you need to point us in the direction of examples of the documentary evidence you are talking about. Thanks once again, merlin --Merlinme 17:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that "Curry's figures are consistent with the size of French armies raised on other occasions" I will provide examples as soon as I have time to collect them, but I am pretty sure of that since I am familiar with documentary evidence, not only for France, but also for Italy and Spain, and they are all consistant in that, contrary to narrative sources, numbers are very low, very rarely over 10.000.Aryaman13

I have not read the book by Barker, what is the Heraldic source used? I am only aware of Berry Herald, already used long time ago by Contamine, precisely to show that the French army was not so large.Aryaman13 —Preceding comment was added at 08:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the book to hand, but I'll doublecheck tonight. I didn't actually write that part of the article, but from what I remember it is a correct representation of what she says. --Merlinme 08:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I have modified the campaign account, hopefully making the movements of both sides more understandable.Aryaman13 —Preceding comment was added at 08:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I have added a new chapter on the sources, maybe the article should be modified in order to accord the data.--Ignacio Arrizabalaga (talk) 11:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Agincourt Campaign

The French actually staked the narrow causeway at Blanchetake, while the fortifications at Amiens ruled out any chance to the English to cross there, so they had to move further south to fing an unguarded ford. As for the numbers for the semonce, they would be under 3.000, even counting the Burgundian noblemen that joined the French just the day of the battle. Mind that these volunteers were commanded basically personal retinues, hastily assembled, the Duke of Brabant, for instance, joined with just 50 men at arms according to the research by Serge Boffa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryaman13 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Losses are very different depending on the source, however it is not surprising a high proportion of noblemen, imagine the event of an English defeat, according to the Gesta there were only about 900 men at arms, but that included almost all the high nobility of the knigdom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryaman13 (talk • contribs) 10:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, possibly. I'd have to do more research on the size of the retinue each nobleman would have had. Curry seems to be virtually alone in putting the English army at much more than about 6,000. So if there were 6,000 English and 12,000 French, then we have odds of 2-1, which is perfectly scary enough when you are tired and hungry. Allowing for a bit of poetic exaggeration, maybe we can get to the estimates of 4-1 or 6-1. Also, maybe the eyewitnesses were comparing the number of men-at-arms? If 6,000 French men-at-arms advanced to fight 900-1,000 English men-at-arms, then that would have given the sense of a very large disparity in numbers. But at this distance in time it's almost impossible to tell. It would take more research. I'd be interested to see that research- but of course, until it's published by a respected historian, we couldn't use it on Wikipedia. ---- Merlinme (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Juliet Barker

I have taken a look at who is she, since I hadn´t read anything from her, this biographical note is from and aditorial she works for http://www.harpercollins.com/authors/29208/Juliet_Barker/index.aspx?authorID=29208

Juliet Barker is internationally recognized for her ability to combine groundbreaking scholarly research with a highly readable and accessible style. Best known for her prizewinning and best-selling book The Brontës (1994), which was widely acclaimed as setting a new standard in literary biography, she is also an authority on medieval tournaments. Born in Yorkshire, she was educated at Bradford Girls’ Grammar School and St Anne’s College, Oxford, where she obtained a doctorate in medieval history. From 1983 to 1989 she was the curator and librarian of the Brontë Parsonage Museum. She has, for many years, been a frequent contributor to national and international television and radio as a historian and literary biographer, and has lectured in the United States and New Zealand. In 1999 she was one of the youngest-ever recipients of an Honorary Doctorate of Letters, awarded by the University of Bradford in recognition of her outstanding contribution to literary biography. She is married, with two children, and lives in the South Pennines.

So, she is rather an amateur in mediaeval history, not really an academic authority the likes of Anne Curry, for instance, that could account for her reliance on narrative sources instead of documentary evidence.--Ignacio Arrizabalaga (talk) 11:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree- while she is a good historian, she is not a medieval historian. However I am not in a position to say that she is wrong. I also think her response to Curry is sensible: a) how do you explain the eyewitness accounts? and b) the French documentary evidence is incomplete. Until a good medieval historian (perhaps Curry herself) answers these questions, I think Curry's work will remain controversial- and we are not in a position to choose who is correct. We should reflect the range of opinions given by historians; i.e. we should reflect that Curry is currently almost alone among historians (certainly British historians) in thinking the French army was 12,000. --Merlinme (talk) 12:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I have both books here (Barker and Curry) and will now compare sources and methods. An observation: Barker was awarded a Doctorate in Medieval History at Oxford (officially the number 2 university in Europe after Cambridge, in the top 20). This being the case, how is it that Aryaman13 tries to describe her as an 'amateur in medieval history' and Merlinme describes her as 'a good historian, she is not a medieval historian'. Although the work of each historian is open to critical discussion, as is anybody's work, i do not think that we are qualified to decide on the academic standards of the writers, this was already done when they were granted their doctorates. Just a clarification: a first degree in a U.K. university is a Batchelor's Diploma awarded after a basic study course of 3 to 4 years and graded 1 to 3. A Doctorate is a further 3 to 5 years of study and research closely monitored by an academic review board of Senior Tutors and Professors (department heads) and (in this case) based on a specific research project, at the end which the candidate presents (reads) his thesis to the Review Board and defends it against vicious and penetrating questioning. Following which, the Doctorate may (or may not) be awarded. France does not have any university (or even a Grand Ecole) which is placed in the top 20 in Europe. Regarding the 2 finger gesture. I have lived in France for many years and this gesture is considered to be extremely rude but has no special significance. Some say it relates to the Devil, others just do not know and there is no generally accepted tradition as to is origins.bruce (talk) 08:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)30th june 2008

Thanks for the observations. I have a 2:1 in Philosophy, Politics and Economics myself from Oxford University, so I'm aware of their methods, certainly up to undergraduate level. My observation about Barker's background in medieval history was based on her published books, which until comparatively recently concentrated on the Bronte sisters. In any case, I was actually saying that regardless of our opinion of the relative merits of the historians (and I tend to think Curry is a bit too deliberately controversial, whereas Barker tends to prefer the more colourful anecdotes of the story), we can't let these opinions influence the article, unless perhaps if they are backed up by other historians (not just our opinion). I don't like the way Barker "constructs" a figure of 36,000 for the French, based on 6 times 6,000 (none of the primary sources use a figure of 36,000), but if you read my comments in total, I have been arguing strongly against treating Curry's figures (or Barker's, for that matter) as if they were gospel truth. My main point was that we should reflect the range of opinion among historians on the numbers involved, which in turn reflects quite widely differing primary sources. --Merlinme (talk) 08:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

was that the PPE school that queens operates with keble? i interviewed twice for a place there in 1960, but was turned down, being accused of inductive reasoning. at that age what other method can one use easily? anway i went on to a 2.1 in modhist at london (i know, redbrick,redbrick). i mentioned the uk gradings/system only because you cannot know where (country) contributors have been educated and under what system. regarding the two historians, i think that it is equally legitimate and fair to go to either Barker or Curry. the interpretation is what becomes sensitive. suggestion: i could list the material which i have here (books) and could then respond to specific questions listing detailed references. would this be of interest?

a small item of information ref longbows: these weapons are never, rpt. never drawn with the arms. the primary force comes from the shoulders. the method is like this: clench both your fists and place them near each other approximately over your beltbuckle. place your feet about 18 inches apart and look straight ahead. the target will be to your left. turn your left foot and your head towards the target. (in a real shoot, your left hand will be holding the bow and your right hand the string/arrow) in one co-ordinated-simultaneous movement: move your right hand to your right ear and unfold/straighten your left arm in a motion which curves forward and left. this brings the nock of the arrow (the string held by 4 fingers with the nock between the index and 2nd finger) to the right ear and the left arm is locked in the extended position. the bow is now fully extended and rests against the area between the left thumb and index finger, this also forms the arrow-shelf. the remaining fingers of the left hand rest lightly against the bow. any left fingers grabbing against the bow at the moment of loose should be avoided because the arrow will undershoot. as i mentioned, the biceps alone do not have enough bulk or power to pull the bow. the operation is a co-ordinated movement involving both arms, both shoulders and the abdominals. it is an opening movement rather than a pulling movement. in my own experience, an 80lb bow will send a 36 inch arrow well over 200 yards at maximum elevation and a 130/160lb military longbow could well achieve almost double that. the penetration effect is due mainly to dynamic energy: weight v. point-load, rather than kinetic energy: velocity v. point load. against armour, a high percentage of the energy is transferred to the rigid armour resulting in penetration. chain mail offered slightly better protection because of its flexibility which lowered the energy transfer (ballistics ballistics). it is a ferocious, tiring and difficult weapon to use, requiring constant practice. hope this is of interest.bruce (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, very interesting, thank you. As someone with an interest in medieval warfare, I've always been curious with exactly how the longbow worked, that's very enlightening. It would be nice to have a go at shooting (presumably a very light!) bow some time.

Regarding a couple of your other questions, I did PPE at Magdalen, 1993-96. Re: the Agincourt article, I'm always interested in improving it, and I will confess, I don't possess a copy of the Curry, and haven't read the Barker from start to finish. I would love to tighten the article up, but it's simply a matter of finding the time. One thing I did do recently was buy a copy of Curry's "Sources and Interpretations", which is supposed to be the book (or the only one in print, anyway) for giving the primary sources. If you would like to go through the different sources with me, I'd be very happy to. --Merlinme (talk) 07:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

delighted to develop this theme. i believe that direct email contacts may be useful. if you agree, i suggest that you send a note by regular airmail to me at the following address: bruce, p.o. box 9, F-04280 Cereste, France. this will avoid extraneous attention. if i am not around, my wife (nicole) will take care of it. best wishes:bruce (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The Great Global Warming Swindle

I did state my explanation of the neutrality dispute heading on the talk page. Please re-insert the dispute heading so that I do not have to report this violation to an admin. The Noosphere (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, not really. You said you disagreed with the article as it stands. When disagreeing with long standing, endlessly argued over consensus, you are expected to advance arguments why the consensus is wrong, and win the arguments, before making significant changes to the article. Alternatively, there is a school of thought which says you should make the changes, but then when they are reverted you should discuss before changing again. (Change, revert, discuss, or something like that.) I have no intention of undoing my revert; if you truly think I am violating some Wikipedia policy or other, then of course you can bring it to the attention of an admin, and we can talk about what exactly I have or have not done wrong. Lack of talking seems to me to be the problem with your current style of editing; you make quite radical changes with barely a nod to discussing with other editors. --Merlinme (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop your bad faith accusations against me

Your allegations that I have had a previous account are hurtful and poison the cooperative spirt of a community-built encyclopedia. It is not suspicious that I would have known about an arbitration against a user dating back before my first edits. Many stories about Wikipedia arbitration have been picked up in the mainstream media. This [2] is one of many from the past week. Please stop reverting my work and please start treating me with the civility expected of all of us as Wikipedia contributors. The Noosphere (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

In what sense are they bad faith? You display intimate knowledge of a two year old Arb Comm ruling after five days on Wikipedia? You'll forgive me if I'm suspicious. I'm not exactly the first person to suspect you've edited on Wikipedia before, am I? And the number seems to be growing daily. --Merlinme (talk) 08:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, The Noosphere has been banned indefinitely as a suspected sock. --Merlinme (talk) 08:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

THANKYOU!

Thanks so much for your message in reply to my longbows vs crossbows question. I never read a more informative passage on the subject. You really know your stuff! I can fully understand the power vs rate of fire vs penetration capability (if that sounded a bit wierd, it's because I'm only twelve). It's a bit like comparing an M4 carbine with a bazooka; power vs rate of fire. As a matter of interest, which would you rather be armed with in a battle situation: an English longbow, or a Genoese crossbow? Thanks again, bye.Nelsondog (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Nelsondog

Well, I guess I'd want a longbow, but I'm biased because I'm English. It has a very strong, almost mythical appeal to English people, its thought to be how we won Crecy and Agincourt against the odds (although there's actually some dispute about its effectiveness at Agincourt). The other big difference between a longbow and a crossbow though is that it takes years of training and enormous strength to shoot a heavy longbow. Skeletons of medieval longbowmen are noticeably deformed; basically they had enlarged left arms (which takes the strain if you're drawing with the right arm), and bone spurs on their arms and fingers, caused by the physical stresses involved of practising with such heavy bows all the time. They would have been built something like blacksmiths. The crossbow, on the other hand, uses some sort of winding mechanism, and requires far less physical strength to draw. Also, it basically shoots in a straight line, whereas a longbow takes far more practise to be able to shoot accurately (see archer's paradox. Basically you need to shoot slightly to the left of the target.) So if we were talking about which one I would rather have, as I'm not built like a blacksmith and I haven't practised for years, it would have to be the crossbow! Anyway, I hope you enjoy exploring the various links on the medieval period in Wikipedia, there are some pretty good articles here. --Merlinme (talk) 08:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Late Roman army

RE: your recent edits to Late Roman army. Whilst I welcome all positive contributions, I fail to see how "tirelessly" or "extraordinary eagerness" constitute unencyclopedic language, especially as they are straight translations of wording used in the source, Ammianus Marcellinus. Also, what's wrong with "classic"? Might I suggest (politely) that you limit edits to adding value to the existing text rather than just imposing your own personal preferences as reagrds wording? Fair point about the barbarisation fallacy: but that's because I haven't finished writing that section yet. Regards EraNavigator (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What am I supposed to react to, apart from what I'm reading? I'm not psychic; I don't know what the barbarisation fallacy section is going to say, and neither will anyone else. Regarding the Battle of Strasbourg, your section about this is in Late Roman army is two to three times the size of the main article, which strikes me as putting the cart before the horse. Your account is extremely interesting; however, "tirelessly" is nonsensical. No mortal being is "tireless". For that matter, what does "extraordinary eagerness" mean? Was Marcellinus there? Is he talking for the whole of both armies? Or was he using rhetoric, and not expecting it to be taken as a literal account? Above all, please make it clear if it's a direct quote; that way the translation can be verified, and understood as a quote. Regarding "classic"; what does the word mean, exactly, in this context? Is it: "Belonging to the highest rank or class"? Or: "Adhering or conforming to established standards and principles"? Or: "Of or characteristic of the literature, art, and culture of ancient Greece and Rome"? Or: "Formal, refined, and restrained in style"? Or: "Having historical or literary associations"? It's ambiguous. I altered it to mean what I thought was the most likely meaning, i.e. a "classic" Roman army deployment, which is to say, one of their standard forms; a traditional setup. If you think that's wrong, please change it; but don't leave it ambiguous.

If you have a look at my contributions generally you will realise that I do contribute to articles. However I am also a strong believer in copy editing, which is to say making the existing material clearer and more coherent. If you disagree with me- make it clearer and more coherent in your own way. --Merlinme (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Battle Of Agincourt

Hello and apologies for the delay re Battle Of Agincourt

Sorry about the lack of updates re the discussion field and will address them asap, is there a wiki function that could tag Currys work as opinion but that refers to the bill of pay receipts as potential evidence and that they could be considered as a reasonable guessitmate for the time? Best wishes Twobells (talk) 13:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have added to your work [hope this is acceptable] 'However, it has to be said that her theory on Agincourt is disputed by the vast majority of her international peers both contemporary and historic.' In Italics.

That leaves the piece in but offers insight as to how her peers view her work. Twobells (talk) 15:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding 'coupe de grace' I am visiting the Royal Armoury soon and will note down as many literary citations as I can once there. Twobells (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I thought italics/ bold was a bit over the top! I think it's reasonable that we make it clear that she's in direct contradiction of other historians, (and contemporary accounts, for that matter), but we can let the reader make up their own mind after reading the arguments. Juliet Barker is the only historian I'm aware of who wrote a book about Agincourt after Curry's book, and I've already quoted her disagreement with Curry at length; the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica is also quoted in this section and contradicts Curry, so we have a reasonable selection of "contemporary and historic" historians' views. --Merlinme (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Agincourt

Hi, I just did not understand that why the edit you reverted is controversial? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Because if you ask six different historians you get six different answers? The numbers in the battle box used to change on a weekly basis until we found the current compromise. --Merlinme (talk) 07:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Editor Review

Thank you for reviewing me, and I'd like to address some of the concerns you voiced:

"In particular, you never really even acknowledged that what I was trying to do (limit cultural references to notable entries with verified links to the SDS) made sense."

I believe I really did. My dispute with you was, in my view, not over this point, but over your method for determining it, by requiring something to be on wiki. I in fact voiced, in my first reply on the subject, that I agreed with most of your limits for inclusion - just not the one about needing to be on wikipedia.

"I can agree, to an extent, with your declaration that no episodes or songs be included - after all, most of the time this kind of thing is just thrown around as a "spooky, esoteric term". But if a work is deeply based on the concept, and is not so completely trivial as to basically just be some kid in his garage, it is fair to include it as a reference in popular culture. After all, being the English wikipedia just means we cover things in the English language - it does not mean that we don't care about the non-English-speaking world."

"In the end I had to go and find policies to back me up, at which point you said "We should limit the list to entries that are notable or uniquely interesting, and back these up with sources - I in fact have agreed with this from the start." Well, firstly, you never actually said that from the start, you instead chose to "discuss" the things you disagreed with me on; and secondly, to say that you said this from the start is disingenuous. In your immediately preceding post, you said "WP:Notability does not apply to the CONTENT of an article - only the topic itself"."

"For a good example of where to draw the line, I would say that anything that goes into the details of the concept, and can find professional sources with a quick web search, should be acceptable, song, episode, or not."

"I could only interpret this as disagreeing with me that entries in the cultural references list, i.e. the CONTENT of the SDS article, should be notable. In fact that whole post is a perfect example of how, rather than attempt to understand what I'm trying to do, you listed the ways in which you disagreed with me."

By the definitions of notability given by Wikipedia guidelines, I did not and do not believe we should require that for the section. We can find sources from the creator that something is based on the SDS, but we are simply not going to find widespread reception and coverage on this reference - in fact, in most cases we'd be lucky to find such an amount of coverage on the work itself. If you mean something else by "notable", please clarify it.

"I think generally on talk pages people would appreciate it if you remembered that Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative exercise; we're supposed to be working together to make the encyclopedia better. I would certainly appreciate it if you made more positive suggestions about how we are going to reach a sensible set of guidelines, rather than focusing on how and why you think I'm wrong."

From my viewpoint, I was. I was trying to illustrate the apparent dangers of relying upon wikipedia as one of those guidelines. I agree with your main goal, and once I get some personal tasks done I'll get to work cleaning the section up. I just don't believe in creating a "walled garden" out of wikipedia.

I hope this reply doesn't sound to aggressive, and I look forward to cleaning up the SDS article with you this summer. Cheers!Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 06:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No that doesn't come across as aggressive, I'm sure we can work together. I disagree with you however on notability; I don't see why something which wouldn't be covered in Wikipedia in normal circumstances should get a one line mention in the SDS article. Following the discussion with you I have however slightly modified my view, and I'm prepared to accept that we can include things which, for whatever reason, would meet notability criteria but don't currently have a Wikipedia entry.

Also, I'm a bit reluctant to rely on the author for a reference; yes, the author is the person in the best position to say what's in a piece of his or her work, but apart from anything else, they've been known to lie; I can think of half a dozen examples where authors made a quote up for the press because they thought it was amusing, or they wanted to deny that a song was about X (for example). They don't necessarily qualify as a Reliable Source. The other reason I want to see a third party reference is simply that this is also a better guide to notability; anyone can write a blog about their work, but it may have sold two copies. Something which was reviewed in the national press has a much better claim to be worth recording in Wikipedia. --Merlinme (talk) 07:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Agincourt Compared

Why not include the comparisons to the battles of Taginae and Hizayon? As written, it does not say that all cavalry charges failed against missle-armed infantry? Is it not instructive to note that throughout history, such charges have failed, on occasion, disastrously. Norm mit (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Mainly because, in the absence of a source, I assume you've made the comparison yourself, and remember, No Original Research. However, even if you had a source, I'd be pretty dubious about putting it in. Why exactly are we comparing these particular battles, separated by hundreds of years and with vastly different technology? The logical descendant of the knight is the tank (nearly impregnable to infantry without specialist weapons), and the logical descendant of the archer is the rifleman (ordinary soldiers with a reasonably high rate of fire, very effective from range against lightly armoured targets). So why haven't we listed all the battles in the Second World War where infantrymen were overwhelmed by a tank "charge"? There must be hundreds. Or, for that matter, Alexander the Great and the Romans heavily used cavalry, and used them very effectively as part of combined arms warfare. I'd be very surprised if there weren't a few successful cavalry charges against archers there, but they were routine, so not particularly well remembered. The reason we remember battles like Agincourt is because they were exceptional; at that particular point in history, it turned out that military technology was such that a frontal assault against a prepared position (protected by mud) was futile. In some ways a better comparison would be the tank assaults of World War One; the heavily armoured men-at-arms made their way through a storm of arrows taking very few casualties, but after wading through the mud, buffeted by arrows, a lot of them "broke down" on reaching the other side, and were picked off by the English troops. Selecting these three battles gives the impression to the reader that they were largely identical, and representative of many other examples, and I'm really not sure that is correct. To draw a comparison between Agincourt and the use of anti-tank missiles in the Yom Kippur war just seems bizarre to me, to be honest. --Merlinme (talk) 08:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Magna Carta talk page

Hi Merlinme. I saw your edits at the Magna Carta article. I added a request at the Magna Carta talk page. Please take a look. Thanks. Suntag (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

He's back

I went ahead and removed the section, because there wasn't a word in it which didn't violate talk page policies, and it's just the same old prattling of his. I did respond to Zulu's comment, though, with a new section - is my reply the matter agreeable to you?

Also, I moved the recently added section into the Cultural References section - it doesn't seem to be a true part of the subject, and is in my view just another thing using similar concepts or words. Also, it seems to be a load of pseudo-philosophical hogwash, but that's just me. Was this a correct move?

Finally - we're we still wanting to textify the reference section? I'm not sure where that discussion went.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 10:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I would like to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please get in touch via my talkpage or email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

7 Deadly Sins

Do not make uncivil attacks on good faith edits by calling them vandalism. Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. --208.38.59.163 (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This edit: [3] deleted 25,000 characters for no good reason other than you weren't getting your way in an argument about linking. That's vandalism. I really don't see how you can disagree with that. I have no objection to you making your case on the talk page, but don't delete content out of petty vindictiveness. I will ignore your entry on my talk page as a sign of good faith, but if you persist in vandalism to Seven deadly sins, or if you continue to harass me, I will report you to an admin. --Merlinme (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Salute

Hello Merlinme.

I have really liked the way you prompt others and imply the idea in composing sentences that are much more understandable and written in fluent English. I myself am not a native speaker of the English language but I really do enjoy speaking and writing with the language. I will be positively excited if we could discuss issues that are related directly or indirectly with linguistics. If you are willing to contact me please let me know.

gokalpzya@kelebekmail.com Karamati —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.128.139 (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a nice compliment, thank you. I'd be happy to discuss linguistics with you, although the amount of time I have available will vary. Let me know what you have in mind. --Merlinme (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Empire: Total War

I think it might be a good idea to create a "release" section for the article, which would incorporate the current first paragraph of the "reception" section (less first sentence, since that definitely belongs in "reception") and also bring in a few parts from the development section regarding patches, etc, as well as a copyeditted version of Simpson's points for post-release. It strikes me that creating an entirely new sub-section just a single primary source is giving undue weight to what is only a small issue, and is very disjointed from the rest of the article. I'll give a look into it tomorrow. -- Sabre (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are some issues about the best way to present the material in a way which doesn't give it undue weight. I've attempted to give a balanced flavour from what are quite long and quite carefully worded blogs, but I wasn't 100% sure of the best place to put it. It doesn't really belong with the magazine reviews, which is why I gave it its own sub-section.

I definitely think it's worth having somewhere, but I'm sure you could do a better job than me at incorporating it into the structure of the article so it doesn't "stick out" so much. --Merlinme (talk) 08:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

GW Swindle

Hi Merlinme, thanks for your contribtions to the article. As to the lead, wouldn't paragraph #4 be better as part of a controveries section, with perhaps the first sentence or two remaining in the lead as the summary? Of course, the rest of the article could use consolidation and organization, but getting the lead is the best first step. I'm also wondering why so much space is devoted to Carl Wunsch's purported repudiation of the documentary, as opposed to his own featured opinions. Dr. Wunsch has never retracted his actual statements as they were used in the film. After Dr. Wunsch reported contacts by some of his peers he publicly claimed he didn't like the films conclusions. By the same standard, shouldn't as much space be devoted within wiki articles referencing the IPCC reports about the scientists listed as contributors, such as those featured in The Great Global Warming Swindle, actually disagree with the IPCC's global warming conclusions? Anyhow, I might not be able to contribute to the article as some editors are threatening to have me blocked suggest that I should be blocked for my reporting on the William M. Connolley issues. Modesty aside, it would be wikipedia's loss - but the public would gain the benefit of knowing how Wikipedia policies devolve into censorship protecting special interest activism and propoganda. --Knowsetfree (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. You've raised a lot of issues. I'll answer as best I can (bearing in mind I have a full time job).

1) TGGWS raised an an enormous amount of controversy and criticism. It was the subject of a very large OfCom inquiry. This all features heavily in the article; the Lead should reflect the content of the article. I'm happy to discuss modifications, but it would be wrong to remove all mention of the criticism, controversy and OfCom inquiry from the Lead.

2) All Wunsch said in the programme was that as temperature rises, the amount of CO2 released by the oceans goes up. What he strenuously objected to was Durkin's use of this to say that raised temperature causes raised CO2, rather than the other way round. What he was trying to say was that as temperature rises, we can expect feedback effects from the oceans to make the matter worse, and this is one of the things we should be worrying about. Wunsch doesn't like the most extreme "doom-mongers" of global warming, but he does believe in global warming. If you think there's a better way to reflect this in the article, please say. I take your point that we may be focusing on the people who disagree with the programme (and could focus on e.g. Lindzen and Reiter who disagree with the IPCC's conclusions). However there are thousands of respected scientists who contributed to the IPCC, only a handful of whom disagree with its conclusions. With TGGWS, there are a handful of respected scientists who contributed, two of whom disagree strongly with the way their evidence was used. I think the article currently reflects this in a reasonably balanced way, but I'm open to suggestions.

3) The whole WMC thing is a can of worms. I actually quite like the guy. I can imagine he has had a bad write-up in the right-wing press. What you have to understand is that there have been dozens of climate change sceptics who have been far less polite and constructive than you over the last few years. WMC is a full-time scientist, previously working for the British Antarctic Survey, who believes that man-made climate change is happening (like virtually all the other scientists who've ever looked at it). He has quite a short temper, and he's adopted something close to "act first, ask questions later" approach in some cases, notably suspected sock puppets of people like User:Scibaby. Scibaby has 139 suspected sock puppets. That's a lot of disruption. Blocking such sockpuppets has been explicitly supported by ArbCom in the past; if a new editor looks like a known extremely disruptive editor, than the new editor should be blocked. There simply isn't time to investigate every single case in detail. If mistakes are made, it's so easy to create a new account, that a user can either do so and be more cautious in their edits with the new account, or take steps to protest and prove their innocence, as they prefer. There are rarely enough people to do everything on Wikipedia; it's essentially a volunteer organisation, so you have to make some allowances for people who try to do as much as possible, even if they may occasionally cross the line into acting without enough care. I have made approx 1,000 edits over three or four years. I've made quite a lot of small corrections to random articles I was reading, so the number of articles is probably in the dozens, maybe up to a hundred. A lot of my edits will be undoing vandalism. I've not become an admin because I don't have the time. Does the fact that WMC has many more edits than me make him a better or worse Wikipedian? If he has made it his personal crusade to make climate change articles accurate, is that to be applauded or not? If he blocks disruptive editors for a day, is that a good thing or not? His personal belief is that climate change is happening, and his edits reflect this. I don't personally think his bias matters very much as long as it's countered by people who are sceptics. His edits use reputable sources, and he does not routinely delete other material which reflects reputable sources, and those are the main requirements of an accurate Wikipedia. He would not have been an admin for years if he had not been by far more of a force for good than otherwise. Some people feel that it was harsh to remove his admin rights in a case where he was dealing with an editor who was making Wikipedia worse. He trod very close to the line of arbitrariness, and ArbCom eventually made the decision that he shouldn't be an admin (for the time being) in a consensus based project.

4) You were not threatened with blocking over the WMC thing (or the article probation thing for climate change articles). You were reminded that you should not make personal attacks, and you were reminded to be careful when making edits to articles under probation. As to whether you were making personal attacks, well- to me it looked like you were trying to build a case against WMC. The question needs to be asked, why were you doing so? Why had you decided to put WMC on trial (especially bearing in mind that you don't know the full background of the case, and are mainly relying on hostile reporting)? In what way does it make Wikipedia a better encylopedia? If you feel that WMC has been bullying you, say that. If you feel that WMC has been bullying someone else, say that. If you think WMC has been making biased edits to an article, say that. All those things are relevant to the encyclopedia. Detailing historic complaints made against WMC is, at best, tangential, and at worst, a personal attack on another editor. Specific new complaints can of course be raised. They should be judged on their own merits though, rather than attempting to win the argument by reference to things which happened in the past.

Hope that's helpful. I really must get back to work. I'm happy to discuss specific improvements to TGGWS article. That article's Talk page is probably the place, though we can also discuss here if you wish. --Merlinme (talk) 10:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Temperature record of the past 1000 years

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Temperature record of the past 1000 years, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 19:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

exception from...

What i meant is that the complaint and the problem here is one of communication/policy as well as scientific. The controversy is/was whether Channel4 broke the broadcasting regulation when they showed the polemic. Thus Ward really is an exception to the SPS clause. :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe. I still think we should be very careful of using spin doctors' websites as a reliable source for anything much. Which is not to say that I think Ward is wrong; it's just that the relevance (and the expertise) is the 37 scientists, not Bob Ward himself. Anyway, in practice I don't think we were actually disagreeing on what should or shouldn't go in, so No Worries! --Merlinme (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Depending on what you define a spin-doctor as - perhaps he is...[4]. But yes - we do agree. Btw reading his bio here[5], makes me wonder why we haven't got an article on Piezometry, let alone Paleopiezometry - quite abit outside my area though... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Magna Carta articles

I noticed that you mentioned that you don't have access to these two articles: White, A.B. The Name Magna Carta in The English Historical Review (1915) pp472-475 and Note on the Name Magna Carta in The English Historical Review (1917) pp554-555

I would be happy to email you PDF copies if you would like to read them.—Jeremy (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd be very much obliged if you could, that would be marvellous. --Merlinme (talk) 19:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Mail sent.—Jeremy (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You're a star! I will read and absorb. I find Utinomen's editing a bit one-sided some times, so it would be nice to read and make up my own conclusions. I'll delete my email address from the message above now, as I like to reduce spam risks, but you're more than welcome to contact me again if you wish. Thanks again, --Merlinme (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Magna Carta rv

yes it was a mistake .. i apologize .. you edited before i do! i was trying to rescue some text. Thanks, Maysara (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

TGGWS

Scibaby again I think William M. Connolley (talk) 09:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Starting a sentence with "Because" isn't always bad style

I noted that you made a series of changes to the Ayumi Hamasaki page to remove all sentences that started with "Because", saying that "starting a sentence with 'Because' is pretty awful English style."

Certainly it is a rule that writers can safely follow to insure that they don't end up with sentence fragments, but it can easily be the case that a well worded sentence can start with "because". For example, it can be used as a sensible stylistic choice to highlight a different aspect of a cause-effect relationship.

I only looked at a few of the examples, but the use of "because" that I saw on the page did not seem incorrect. Nor did your changes seem incorrect...just different, stylistically. However, I thought you might want some input regarding this, since you obviously work hard to maintain a responsible and effective Wikipedia presence.

Obviously you don't need to take my word for it, but ask some well-respected writers, and I think you will find that there is room for tolerance on this issue.

69.74.24.2 (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, English is a very flexible language, there's no Academie Francaise. As I said in my note on the Talk page however, I would be startled if you could find an example of a sentence starting with "Because" in a quality English newspaper or encyclopedia. There might, possibly, be a very rare example where it might be justified, but apart from anything else, that article had something like eight examples; in some not only was it not justified, there was a much better way of phrasing it. --Merlinme (talk) 08:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Intrigued by your claim, I looked and found an example in the second article I checked in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/08/business/08frozen.html?src=me&ref=business). Again, I don't really have anything against the edits you made, and certainly it seemed overused within that article. I just wanted to highlight that I don't think it's all that rare to find examples of good usage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.74.24.2 (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering if there is a difference in how this is perceived on either side of the Atlantic. Even when technically "allowed", perhaps it is viewed in a more critical light in GB?