User talk:Strebe

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

---

Nice update on the [Hobbit] page. Cheers Mahaabaala 15:15, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

If you inadvertantly create an article with the wrong title, you don't have to blank it and start again from scratch - you can rename it using the "Move this page" command in the toolbar. See Wikipedia:How to rename a page for more information.

—Paul A 09:02, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Changes made to Cartography were good and varifiable

Hi Strebe, i added a coherent and varifiable source to the Cartography heading on Wikipedia on the 5th May with internal links to wikipedia varifying his contributions. Was there a need to re-edit this indeed it added more value to the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.43.122.227 (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Spelling in The Hobbit

Please don't 'correct' edits without checking your facts. -ize is a perfectly acceptable British English spelling variant (see American and British English spelling differences#-ise, -ize) and was JRRT's preferred form. Thu (talk) 09:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:HMCoFirstEditionHobbitCover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:HMCoFirstEditionHobbitCover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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 (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The Hobbit - copyediting

Hi Strebe, I've requested the League of Copyeditors take a look at The Hobbit. I know you're quite exacting about the requirements of the Plot synopsis, so hope you'll keep an eye on it. Of course your input on the rest of the article would be welcome also. --Davémon (talk) 20:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks . . .

for fixing The Hobbit. I noticed that a reference-restoring bot had come along after the vandal, but I didn't have time to see what it had done and repeat it. Rivertorch (talk) 01:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

for clarifying Talk:Gnomonic projection query. --Redbobblehat (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:HobbitTwelfthImpLastPageMeasure.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, File:HobbitTwelfthImpLastPageMeasure.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 19:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC) --Samuell Lift me up or put me down 19:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:HobbitTwelfthImpLastPage.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:HobbitTwelfthImpLastPage.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 19:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:HobbitTwelfthImpLastPageMeasure.jpg

I've retagged this image as non-free. Photographing a copyright work does not transfer rights to you. I've also marked it as missing a fair use rationale, which will result in its removal in seven days if one is not supplied. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

OpenType‎

Hello,

I think this definition should be left divided - the first part is about what it (OpenType‎) is, while the rest is just a timeline: not essential to understand the nature of the thing, but still useful piece of information.

"Paragraph [...] is a self-contained unit of a discourse in writing dealing with a particular point or idea" - so it's a "comprehension" unit, unrelated to how much sentences it encloses (in fact, as I read the Web a lot, I find it very popular in english to make one-sentence paragraphs). Dividing this way (mainly by the "subject" of paragraphs) greatly enhances readability of the definitions. kocio (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

As you can see someone entirely rewrote the introduction, so - at least for me - the problem vanished automatically. =} kocio (talk) 22:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

What would Bilbo do?

Hi, Strebe. Re your revert, I have no particular interest in the spelling's being either way (-ize or -ise) and generally find myself in agreement with your argument here that back-and-forth edits (of the type that the IP editor and you and I just made) are inane. However, in cases where one spelling isn't clearly more appropriate than the other—and this appears to be such a case—consistency seems best. That's why I made the change: I skimmed the rest of the page, saw two instances of authorised, and assumed the IP editor either thought there was a misspelling or was inappropriately trying to "Americanize" a British topic. I see now that the page is a hodgepodge of both forms. That inconsistency seems unfortunate. What do you think? Rivertorch (talk) 16:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Rivertorch. Thanks for the note. I nearly reverted the anonymous edit myself. But we do claim to use Oxford spelling in the article, and in the case of "recognize", Oxford preferred usage is "-ize". As far as I can tell, all the "-ize"/"-ise" words should be "-ize", including "authorized". I really do not understand Oxford usage. "-ize" reflects the Latin form, bypassing French. Yet that is also true of "color" versus "colour" and like words, but obviously Oxford doesn't put up with "color"! *sigh* I would clean up the article, but I don't own an Oxford dictionary. "Recognize" happens to be noted in the Wikipedia style guide itself under the Oxford section, so I reinstated the anonymous edit. Strebe (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I may be extraordinarily dense today, but where is it noted that we claim to use Oxford spelling? If you're right about that, then authorised should also be changed. (I don't have an OED at hand either, but the abridged Concise version is online here; it lists the -ize form first for both recognize and authorize.) Rivertorch (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Not dense. It's hidden as a mark-up comment as the first bytes of the article: "< !-- This article uses British English with Oxford Spelling. Please use this when editing the article." Ooh. An online version of the Oxford? Yes. We should take care of the whole article, then. Strebe (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. I'm dubious that the hidden note resulted from consensus, but for consistency's sake I made the changes. Rivertorch (talk) 05:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Beliefs about the shape of the Earth

Hi, Strebe. I'd like to thank you for [1] my clumsy quotation about Bede's view of the spherical Earth. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. Strebe (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

And also for this:

• Rv. Isaiah insertions and redundant Eratosthenes insertion. The Isaiah passage has been discussed ad nauseam. "Circle" does not mean "sphere"; nor does the original Hebrew word mean "sphere".

The only significant distinction is between Flat Earth and Spherical Earth. If it's a "circle" that means flat, and it should go in the prescientific or pseudoscience category.

By the way, did you see all the work I did on the Myth of the Flat Earth, i.e., the modern notion that Medieval Europeans had gone back to Flat Earth thinking because of supposedly anti-scientific elements within Christianity? --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Uncle Ed. Thanks for the comments. I had not seen the Myth of the Flat Earth article. It's good to see it in Wikipedia, and thanks for your efforts there. The Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth#Pre-19th_century_writings section, by the way, could use some edits for clarity. Strebe (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Dating convention

Hi. The choice of the dating convention are by good WP practice left to the contributing author, therefore I partially had to revert you on Spherical Earth. See also Wikipedia:User preferences for BCE/CE notation. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid you are mistaken. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Longer_periods. Specifically, "Use either the BC–AD or the BCE–CE notation, but not both in the same article." I don't care which we use, but the BCE/CE convention dominated the article. Strebe (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

First thing which comes to my mind is: why didn't you choose BC/AD then? But anyway, MoS is only an appeal to the individual to be consistent in his notation, not at all a mandate to change existing notations to one style, an interpretation with which I can assure you you will run with very quickly into trouble everywhere. That the good practice of keeping exxisting notations is very much alive, applied and respected, you can see here, for example. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 07:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You: "MoS is only an appeal to the individual to be consistent in his notation, not at all a mandate to change existing notations to one style" The policy: "Use either the BC–AD or the BCE–CE notation, but not both in the same article." Should I believe you or the policy? The link you provided here, Wikipedia:User preferences for BCE/CE notation does not seem to contribute anything useful to the discussion; it merely indicates that Wikipedia's project to supply a user preference has fallen apart. The link you supply above demonstrates an edit which unifies the convention within an article, in contradiction to your assertion that the article does not need to be unified. You ask, "First thing which comes to my mind is: why didn't you choose BC/AD then?", when I have already answered with, "I don't care which we use, but the BCE/CE convention dominated the article." We don't seem to be getting anywhere. Strebe (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

No, we don't get anywhere, since you choose to ignore the good practice established but instead quote guidelines out of context. The link I gave you reestablished notations which were previously erroneously changed to BC/AD, so it fully backs up my argument that the original authors, and only the original contributor, have the right to choose between the two systems.

I cannot read from that quote of yours the mandate you seem to demand. It clearly address the individual editor who creates the contents, not some self-appointed sweeper who happens to come along a long time afterwards.

And logically, assuming for the moment that you are right, what would keep other users, on the basis of this very same quote, to change the notation in Spherical Earth consistently to BC/AD? You might say in this case BCE/CE occurred more often, but where actually does that single sentence you rely upon makes a specification to that effect? Nowhere. Please note that MoS is only for style, but the choice of notation actually goes far beyond style. That's exactly the reason why there are no binding guidelines because the issue raises strong emotions and therefore it is best to let the authors choose individually. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, but please just let it go this time. The only practical way, for the sake of peace, it to let the individual author decide so the original notation has to be kept irrespective what you and I may think about theGun Powder Ma (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)m. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You are simply making things up. The Manual of Style exists to resolve these disputes, not just to inject ignorable suggestions when people make things up. It is unfortunate that Wikipedia has not managed to come to some stylistic convention in this matter nor has it managed to come up with a user-settable preference for that category of user who imagines it's actually important which particular convention gets adopted. But what it has stated is that the article must use a single convention. That's not open to debate. That's what is says. Right there, in context. You cannot credibly claim it is out of context; you cannot credibly claim the purpose of the Manual of Style is not for resolving conflicts. The policy resolves these disputes; made-up ideas don't. I don't care if it's BC/AD or BC/BCE. I think that's a pointless, frivolous debate. I do care that an article is coherent. Since the article was originally BC/AD and remained so for at least the first four years, then fine, those who edited it after that were obliged to follow the established convention. The fact that they didn't is why the article became a mess. Strebe (talk) 11:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree the issue is a waste of time for everybody, therefore this is my take to settle this informally before it will get really big in the upcoming mediation process. I won't object to the consistent use of the BC/AD notation (if that was indeed the first notation as you say) in this particular article on the condition that you stop trying to standardize the notation in further articles. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

My purpose in editing Wikipedia is to improve it. You are asking me to forswear my purpose in editing Wikipedia. I will not do that. My edit history is public. You can see that I don't go editing random articles. Spherical Earth was not some random article I wandered into and got into some fit about. I've been editing that article for years now. So, while I certainly will not go off on a rampage to correct every untidy article I can find, nor will I agree not to correct articles I customarily edit or would normally edit. Strebe (talk) 05:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Isaiah 40:22

Many thanks for removing the material on Isaiah from the spherical Earth article. I had flagged it, but it didn't occur to me to check the flat Earth article, where the issue is discussed and referenced. If someone adds the material to the spherical Earth article again, I'll add a cross-reference of some kind to the discussion in the flat Earth article.
All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help as well. As for the reference to Isaiah in flat earth, even that does not tell the whole story. Hebrew cosmology is fairly well understood. The model and how it is described do not differ significantly from surrounding cultures, all of which have the earth as firmly flat and covered by the solid dome of the firmament. I have found no serious academic support for interpreting Isaiah as a reference to a spherical earth, even amongst Jewish scholars. Strebe (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Mercator projection

Please see here. Thanks. – Smyth\^talk 12:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Optimal

Thanks, you're right about optimal being a two-place predicate. Larklight (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Shape of the Earth Merger Discussion

Your comments are welcome at the discussion of the merger proposals involving Flat Earth, Spherical Earth, and Shape of the Earth. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Dymaxion map

Re this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dymaxion_map&action=historysubmit&diff=403472432&oldid=403468015

Sorry, you're right. For some reason I had it fixed in my mind that the icosahedron was inscribed inside the sphere, but there's no reason why that has to be the case... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.26.23 (talk) 12:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutrino

"known to release approximately 99%" had a reference, why was that removed? Distinct themes, perhaps my bad... but disjointed paragraphs / sentences look crummy, chattier verbiage can make an imposing subject approachable. Anyway, there are fact tags for items already referenced, I'll fix it. Try not to break it. - RoyBoy 04:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

"known to release approximately 99%" had a reference, why was that removed?

—I don’t know. You must ask the person who removed it.

but disjointed paragraphs / sentences look crummy

—I agree, but paragraphs conjoined in order to look better fail in their purpose as paragraphs.

chattier verbiage can make an imposing subject approachable

—I do not describe simpler verbiage as “chattier”. I describe verbiage containing superfluous or idiomatic words as “chattier”. Those practices do not aid in understanding. They are simply poor writing.

Regards, Strebe (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I am, guess it was a mistake. - RoyBoy 01:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Every once in a while I look at the history of articles I edited. And I noticed that you have done a lot of work on the neutrino article since the OPERA result. I just wanted to say I think you have been doing a great job. Thanks a lot. Drxenocide (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, Drxenocide. Strebe (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Neutrino - style

Hi, thanks for correcting my "very awkward structure" :-))))))

I am not a native speaker. --Pavel Jelinek (talk) 09:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Pavel. Thanks for the note. Please keep up the good work! I’m always happy to help with the parts I can do well. Strebe (talk) 09:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The Hobbit FA push

Hello. As you've been one of the more regular contributors to The Hobbit I thought I'd let you know that I'd like to nominate it as a Featured Article candidate. The article has recently received a peer review and I've addressed the issues that were mentioned by the reviewer. But if you think there's some more work to do, please let me know. The only thing I'm a bit worried about is the mentioning of the very first film adaptation, an animated short film by Gene Deitch of Tom & Jerry fame, that has only recently been recalled by its creator. The sourcing for this entry is a bit poor but from my point of view the rest of the article is ready to go. Regards, De728631 (talk) 15:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the efforts, De728631. The Hobbit is in fine shape these days. I support its nomination. As for the Gene Deitch adaptation, while a secondary source would be preferable, no such thing has surfaced. Still, the existence of the video clip is not in doubt, nor its authorship, so mention of it is fine. Elaborating on how the film clip came to be is more problematic because that relies entirely on Deitch as a source. Possibly those details should be omitted. The article should not state the licensing rights as fact without better sourcing. Strebe (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)