User talk:Ocanter

Gunpowder

Buchanan 2006, including the Bhattacharya paper Moerou toukon/Freedom skies cited, is available via Google Books. (Moerou toukon/Freedom skies' sources tend to be.) The subsequent chapter, which is also about gunpowder in India, is relevant. I intend to edit the article and want to avoid the unpleasantness that arose earlier so I'm giving you a heads-up now. JFD 02:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool with me. Pyro was reading the Elliot paper in India, so it might be worth checking with him what he found. And of course, discussing changes on the discussion page first is always helpful. I honestly don't see what the basis was for associating Moerou toukon with Freedom skies or with Indian nationalism, or with edit warring or anything else. He made some useful contributions, and some less useful ones to gunpowder. He didn't fight about any of them with anybody. Ocanter 19:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ocanter. I just updated the China section in the gunpowder article with a juicy quote you might find interesting, namely on the significance of the enormous explosive capability of Chinese gunpowder by at least the late 13th century.--PericlesofAthens 20:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ocanter. I have recently added {{dubious}} tags to both of your claims that Roger Bacon was the first to describe gunpowder as a mixture of nothing but sulfur, saltpetre, and charcoal (he is predated by the Wei Xing in China by more than 100 years, as stated in the article, which represents a conflict of information). Nice try with the English encyclopedia of 1771 (and the supposed information found in Needham's 5th volume, Part 7, which I own), but I think not.--PericlesofAthens 03:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide Partington's ancient source? Don't know what encyclopedia you're talking about. If you can't cite an ancient source, it's not going to fly on this article. Peace, 75.36.230.142 05:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deepest apologies. I misread Partington's book on pages 239 to 240, where it says that Wei Xing "employed" those ingredients and listed no others, and I must have assumed that meant those were the only ingredients. I will read further into that. However, if it wasn't for your challenge, I would have probably not gone back and read Partington more clearly. Therefore, I'm glad I ended up bugging you on your talk page.--PericlesofAthens 22:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You also must understand that I thought you had intentions of purposely misleading with your rewording in edits on April 20th, since your edits had Roger Bacon writing the pure form of gunpowder in 1234 AD (which would be false), although he does mention the full and sole 3 ingredients in 1267 when referring to firecrackers in "various parts of the world."--PericlesofAthens 22:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry for my response on the gunpowder talk page. I will try to edit that to make it more polite. The "coded anagram" is weird. If it's a code, why hasn't somebody broken it? It's weird too in that it acutally looks like Latin and English jumbled together. It doesn't look like a cipher. Anyway, I'm inclined to believe it is in fact a code for "charcoal of hazelwood," but I guess unless someone can decipher it, I shouldn't say that it was code for charcoal. Peace, Ocanter 22:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I took Latin for like, two seconds in High School before dropping it and going on to German level 3, so I'm of no help in that case. In the wide world of wiki, there's got to be somebody who can decipher that (seriously). As for the Islamic section, it was poop before I touched it. That's right. Poo-poo. Lol. It still needs a few more sentences, though, since it is pretty pathetic compared to everything else. As for Europe, I added about 4 or 5 new sentences, including clarification on the earliest handguns, arsenals, and traditional perspectives in the 14th century about gunpowder weapons (from Cervantes to the Pope), along with Petrarch and John the Good. However, it would be nice to have just a bit more info before diving into the specifics of Great Britain and the U.S.--PericlesofAthens 08:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Response

I responded to your statements on the gunpowder talk page in a new section at the bottom, about the dating of Chinese gun and bombard, as well as effectiveness of charge.--PericlesofAthens 06:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, it looked like vandalism, but I must have missed something. My bad. Feel free to unrevert the article. Steve Crossin (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- No problem, thanks. Ocanter (talk) 13:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a bot. That's Twinkle. It was my mistake, and I apologise again. Steve Crossin (talk) 13:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]