User talk:Strebe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipedia:Babel
en This user is a native speaker of English.
ja-3 この利用者は上級日本語ができます。
Search user languages

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

Contents

Changes made to Cartography were good and varifiable[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 . . .[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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

Optimal[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

"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[edit]

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[edit]

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)
Thanks for the feedback, I've removed the licensing part and "negotiating tool" so the article mentions only the mere publication of said film and Snyder as the ordering party. De728631 (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Again, thanks. I reordered the sentence a bit an clarified a bit. Hopefully it still works now. Strebe (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, good work there. I'll be bold then and initiate the FA process. De728631 (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I see you've now been editing there a bit as well. Please feel free to weigh in at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Hobbit/archive2. De728631 (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, and good work. I’ve commented on the proposed edits and made a significant one. I’m not sure how that section slipped through with all its problems. Strebe (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

UTF-8 meaningless vs invalid sequence[edit]

(I apologize for my weak english.) On the article Mapping of Unicode characters there was a speaking of byte order marks and I replaced the word "meaningless" to "invalid", then you referred to http://unicode.org/faq/utf_bom.html#bom5 and reverted my change. Let me explain why it is actually invalid, instead of meaningless. The byte order mark is U+FEFF which is a unicode codepoint. In UTF-8 it's a 3 byte sequence, EF BB BF. So if a text parser sees this sequence in the middle of a UTF-8 string, it's a valid string (regardless it shouldn't be there, as the article states you linked). But if we encounter the bytesequence FE FF or FF FE, it's invalid, because it doesn't map to ANY codepoint in UTF-8 (but VALID in UTF-16, mapping to U+FEFF, in the correct endiannes). Cf. Hay (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. Thank you for persisting. And, your English is just fine! Strebe (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Maps[edit]

Hi Strebe, I seem to run into a fair chunk of your comments on talk pages and I thought I'd give you a thumbs up. Also I wondered if you ever check Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps - I quite fancy getting all the map projection articles in a more organised framework - perhaps via a template. I wondered if you had any opinion on the matter.EdwardLane (talk) 10:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks, EdwardLane. Your own contributions are dizzying in scope. Good on you! I strongly favor connecting the map projection articles. As it stands, I don’t even know what they all are, even though I intend to follow them all. If you have experience with this, just let me know how to get started. Strebe (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I stuggle not to charge at the windmills, but no I've not tried anything like this yet, but how hard can it be :) I'll see if I can find a suitable template to act as a guide, I think it's probably just creating a table really so we'd need to figure out what structure to use to describe the different projections. Maintains distance/bearing/shape that kind of thing, probably I should start with the categories listed in the cartographic projections article. If I made that all into a table on that page, then it could become the (or basis for the) template. Hmm ok maybe when I get a spare hour or so. EdwardLane (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
We have some duplication in purpose between map projections and list of map projections, and both are haphazard in their representation. This all needs some thought and reworking. Rather, I assumed you meant something along the lines of just a template marking a category for articles pertaining to map projections (such as { {atlas} } or { {geography} }), but it sounds like you have something more ambitious in mind? Thanks. Strebe (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking it might benefit from something more like Template:Geography_topics EdwardLane (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Ah! Yes. Then I favor your proposal. I will have to think about the taxonomy. Strebe (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


Few more rows to go but ran out of time here's what I got in the hour so far EdwardLane (talk) 12:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

OK I'm now finished with this - it's as good as I can get it I think - I grabbed all the data I could from map projections and list of map projections. Hopefully not too many mistakes?? I know it's not perfect and there are bound to be extra projections and types of projection I've missed. I know I don't know enough to fix that without reading all the entries anyway. Could you check there are no really stupid mistakes please, and then it can gradually get improved by other folk, once { {Map Projections} } has been stuck at the bottom of all the relevant pages. EdwardLane (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I notice you've fixed some bits in the template :) I guess we need consistant fixes to the list of map projections - or map projections pages too. EdwardLane (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I should have warned you about how incoherent the articles are. I keep making fixes here and there but the reality is that the articles are fundamentally broken. Strebe (talk) 22:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Ptolemy II projection[edit]

Strebe, thankyou for the word on Ptolemy's [P]two Pprojections (yours @me on the Waldseemuller Talk-page). Looking for ways to move forward a bit (and numbering for rapid reference) - might you be able to help? - I gather that (1) there is a "Ptolemy's Second Projection"; and (2) there's more to it than just the change-of-scale involved in his progression from the Syntaxis to the Geographia; and (3) it is found in-use in C.16. That has helped me / sharpened up my scrutiny of what I'm looking at. I'm still pretty confident that (4) the titling on the Waldseemuller map is not in fact saying that the map's done on Ptolemy II (I still read the Latin as saying the map's done "according to the Ptolemaic tradition" rather than anything about any "second" anything). I notice that (5) no-one seems to have written up Ptolemy II on Wikipedia: mentions I've seen present onscreen in black not blue! (The List of Map Projections (6) isn't wholly limited to the Renaissance / Modern period - it starts with a mention of the equirectangular projection as c.120AD, due Marinus of Tyre - but (7) its emphasis largely excludes Antiquity and (8) Ptolemy is unmentioned there; similarly in (9) the Map Projection article: (10) Renaissance/Modern focus + (11) no Ptolemy.) Unfortunately (12) the references / links you've given me aren't telling me much: I don't have access to a copy of (12) the (printed) Snyder source you mention, and the mention by (13) the Mapthematics people and the information on (14) the National Library of Oz source don't give any comparisons or depth. Can you (15) point me to anything that describes the differences between Ptolemy I and II? And - (16) I'm thinking Waldseemuller is extremely early (1507) in C.16 - do we know what are the earliest known uses (post-Antiquity, obviously!) of Ptolemy II? SquisherDa (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

2. Yes, the difference is profound. The original projection described by Ptolemy is just a conic with a lip around the bottom. He also described a third projection, but in Book 7 of Geography instead of Book 1, where the first two are described. The third projection is a sort of azimuthal scheme. It is not known to ever have been used.
3. Ptolemy II has many examples of 15th and 16th century use.
4. Correct. The translated title as given in the Waldseemüller map article is, The Universal Cosmography according to the Tradition of Ptolemy and the Discoveries of Amerigo Vespucci and others. Hence, no mention of projection.
5. Correct. There is no article dedicated to the Ptolemy projections.
6. Correct. There is no intent to limit the projections in the List of map projections article.
7. The list of maps in that article is haphazard and by no means “complete”. (There is no such complete list anywhere; it’s not even clear what that would mean.)
12. Snyder obtained translations of the Ptolemy I and II projections from Edward Luther Stevenson’s Geography of Claudius Ptolemy. New York: New York Public Library, 1932. pp. 40–45. Reprinted as Claudius Ptolemy, The Geography, New York: Dover Publications, 1991.
15. Snyder is the only analysis I have seen. He explains the translations provided by Stevenson and developed the mathematics.
16. Earliest known use of the second projection is the 1482 Ulm Ptolemy atlas, engraved by Johann Schnitzer of Armszheim and printed by Leinhard Holle.
Strebe (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
(I've gone quiet, temporarily; rather than gone away permanently. Your advice made me aware of the WP:OR / WP:RS / WP:SYN etc side of things - as alongside the perhaps slightly rhetorical unBite / unRules / WP:AGF etc - so I've been checking things out. (Have a peek iff interested.) I'll be back (secundum Schwartzenegger? / MacArthur?).)
SquisherDa (talk) 11:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Map projection[edit]

Thanks for improving my edits on this page. It's cleaner and clearer now. hgilbert (talk) 20:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. That article needs so much work, but I can’t seem to get around to it. Edits like yours help, and they prod me as well. Strebe (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikimapia[edit]

Please see the links from WP:AN Concerning Wikimapia Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Sfan00 IMG. I went over the materials you linked to. I see the problem. In this case let me make an alternative argument: The World map article does not cite Wikimapia or link to it as authoritative on any particular topic (unlike its use elsewhere in Wikipedia). The article merely notes it as a “world map” link, which it is. It seems at least as relevant as many of the other links, several of which are more “self-published” than Wikimapia. Possibly even more links ought to be removed than I already have, but the list as it stands gives a diverse and useful sampling. (I have no connection whatever to Wikimapia, not even as a registered user.) Strebe (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, But I think perhaps it should be further down the list... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Unreliability of UTF-8 BOM[edit]

You reverted my edit to byte order mark, in which I said:

...the presence of the BOM serves at best as an unreliable hint that a text stream or file might be UTF-8.

as a "non sequitur". I think the meaning of my addition is clear, and I meant exactly what I said. Let me explain in more detail.

The absence of a UTF-8 BOM at the start of a file means nothing: the file could still be a UTF-8 text file without a BOM, so there's no information content there at all. The presence of a UTF-8 BOM at the start of a file might mean that it's a UTF-8 encoded text file. Or it might not. Or it might mean that it's an ISO 8859-1 text file beginning in "". Or it might be a binary file in some other format starting, by chance, with the bytes in question. There's really no way of knowing. Now, you might say that this is sophistry, that it is obvious from the rest of its content that the file is a text file -- but at this point, you are engaged in content sniffing, and might as well use a heuristic detector to discover the encoding.

As I said in the article, the presence of a UTF-8 BOM is useful as a hint that a file is in UTF-8, but no more. And it's certainly not reliable. Hence my choice of words. -- The Anome (talk) 12:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

No, your edit was a non sequitur because it stated, "Byte order has no meaning in UTF-8 so in UTF-8 the BOM serves only, at best, as an unreliable hint". The conclusion of unreliability has nothing to do with byte order having no meaning. Also your statement that the BOM serves “at best as an unreliable / hint that a text stream or file might be UTF-8.” states “might be” FOUR different ways in one sentence, grossly emphasizing the unreliability. The presence of a BOM is, in practice, a far more likely indicator than “at best an unreliable hint that it might be”. Strebe (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Even if the exact wording which The Anome may be claimed to be a "non sequitur" if you take them literally whihout regarding the context, there was no reason to delete the more detailed wording by which I described the same fact, including deleting the additional information like a link to the ongoing discussion. I am tempted to regard this as near to vandalism. Therefore, I have reverted your recent deletion. -- Karl432 (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
You need to address the comments I made at Talk:Byte order mark. Your accusations of vandalism, in particular, are not helpful and, along with your ignoring of the discussion on the Talk page, suggest a lack of sincerity or some emotional investment unrelated to the needs of the article. Strebe (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
By your repeated revert from July 14 (with remark "You need to address...") you indiscriminately reverted the following changes:
  • replacing in section "UTF-8", 2nd paragraph, the wording
    "so in UTF-8 the BOM does not declare a byte order, but serves only as a declaration of the fact that the following text is encoded in UTF-8. It is to be noted that the presence of the byte sequence representing an UTF-8 encoded BOM at the start of a text stream or file can be interpreted as a hint that a text stream or file might be encoded as UTF-8, but not as a proof, as such a byte sequence may have other unrelating meanings unless such can be excluded by other knowledge of the context." by
    "so in UTF-8 the BOM serves only to identify a text stream or file as UTF-8".
    What is your concrete concern about the more specific wording?
  • replacing the more precise "not explicitly recommend" [the use of the BOM] by the misunderstandable "not recommend" (which can be interpreted as "does recommend to [use] not", as I wrote in the remark associated to that change) at two places (2nd and 3rd paragraph of section "UTF-8"). What is your concrete concern about this wording?
  • deleting the reference to a mail from Asmus Freytag (one of the authors of the Unicode standard) published on the Unicode mailing list, in which a concise summmary of the BOM problems addressed by the text you have reverted is given. What is your concrete concern with this link?
  • reverting the change if "indicate" (the wording the standard uses) to "identify" in the footnote 1 of the section "Representations of byte order marks by encoding". What is your concrete concern about this wording?
Also, where is a contradiction to anything mentioned in the Talk Page for which you claim a need to be addressed? (Besides the fact that anything to be addressed is 1.) the standard, 2.) sources given by the members of the standard committee like those found on the Unicode mailing list, and only 3.) tertiary sources like the talk page.)
I still consider your repeated revert of expert input at least as impolite. I do now take the appropriate action and revert your revert, to allow the input of other experts than you be shown. Of course, you stay invited to imprive the article by constructive single edits (rather than indiscriminate reverts) which are appropriately commented. --Karl432 (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Could you please discuss this on the Byte order mark Talk page where it belongs? It’s useless here. Other people don’t know to look here. Strebe (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Your Credo Reference account is approved[edit]

Good news! You are approved for access to 350 high quality reference resources through Credo Reference.

  • Fill out the survey with your username and an email address where your sign-up information can be sent.
  • If you need assistance, ask User:Ocaasi.
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Credo article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Credo pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Credo accounts/Citations.
  • Credo would love to hear feedback at WP:Credo accounts/Experiences
  • Show off your Credo access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Credo_userbox}} on your userpage
  • If you decide you no longer can or want to make use of your account, donate it back by adding your name here

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 17:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved![edit]

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

  • The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
  • To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
  • If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
  • HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
  • Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Your Credo account access has been sent to your email![edit]

All editors who were approved for a Credo account and filled out the survey giving their username and email address were emailed Credo account access information. Please check your email.

  • If you didn't receive an email, or didn't fill out the survey, please email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com
  • If you tried out Credo and no longer want access, email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com

If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me. I hope you enjoy your account! User:Ocaasi 15:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Red dwarf[edit]

Please respond to my message on Talk:Red dwarf regarding grammar in the lead. Cadiomals (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk page edits[edit]

Please don't refactor talk pages like you did here. Your edit removed my comment which is generally not acceptable per our Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. I've now restored it, so please continue the discussion. De728631 (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

What "comment" do you refer to? You dropped a huge spew of article text in middle of existing Talk page dialog. How is that acceptable per guidelines or even simple reason? It looks indistinguishable from vandalism. If you have something to discuss, great, let's discuss. Strebe (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
It was an example of a proposed edit, which is a very common way of discussing controversial edits. I would've expected you to know that. Not to mention that you didn't even leave an edit summary. That said, that whole discussion is made up of samples of article content, so your argument is moot. De728631 (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
On a second look after reading your reply on the article talk I agree that some of my templates ended up in your previous text, and I don't know either how that happened. At least it was not at all intentional. So let's go back to business and discuss the layout of that article. De728631 (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Sandy[edit]

Show me a reliable news source from the last month stating that the island may possibly exist! otherwise we are duty bound to report that it does not, regardless of our personal beliefs. I am actually a member of the Flat Earth Society but do not promote their views on wikipedia.--Milowenthasspoken 11:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

  • P.S. maybe this will help. National Geographic says as of 29 Nov.[2]: "Full evidence has finally been presented. “Sandy Island” has now been officially stricken from all National Geographic map products."--Milowenthasspoken 13:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry. I will not discuss this with you for the simple fact that you have no clue what’s even in dispute here and because your cognitive model of facts is fundamentally in conflict with mine, with science’s, and with Wikipedia’s. Strebe (talk) 23:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep telling yourself that. I'll leave you alone.--Milowenthasspoken 00:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Propp[edit]

I'm sorry if I came of as harassing, but try and take a step back and ask yourself; what is Propp's structural analysis? Why mention that it was formed from a study of Russian folklore in particular? So, either expand and explain your point, or find some other way of saying it more directly. For more discussion let's use the talk page. Abductive (reasoning) 08:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you read[edit]

[3]? Dougweller (talk) 13:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Flat Earth[edit]

Are you aware of WP:3RR? That was a content dispute and there are no exceptions to 3RR except BLP violations and obvious vandalism. Dougweller (talk) 07:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Why are you mentioning this? I did not revert more than three times and in fact I requested that the page be protected—which it now is. Strebe (talk) 09:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Because I told the other editor. I find if I don't it causes needless aggro. Didn't mean to offend you. Dougweller (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Just thought I must have missed something. No worries. Strebe (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Help requested[edit]

Can you tell me where you went for help on the Flat Earth article? I'm having a problem with a very aggressive, uncooperative editor on the article Ecclesiastes - he's reverting everything and making very little attempt to discuss. PiCo (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, PiCo. Sorry to hear of your troubles. I just requested that the page be protected. Strebe (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Sandy Island Exists[edit]

I'm surprised how quick everyone is to agree to the party line. Simply using Google Maps satellite, one can see that there's something at the location, and its shape is identical to how Sandy Island was presented on old maps that depicted the island at a close distance. I'm not sure it's a true island, and may be mostly submerged, but there is clearly something there. It seems that one source is now the bible for declaring that this island doesn't exist. More baffling is the insistence that the waters in the area are so deep, meaning there's no chance that anything could be there. Looking at Google Maps satellite, the ocean floor is noticeably shallower at and around the location than in surrounding areas.

I post here because you seemed to be the only voice of reason. What is going on that everyone wants to insist this island isn't real and that nothing could possibly be there, all because one alleged expedition says so. That was enough to remove it from all maps? Very odd. 98.221.141.21 (talk) 08:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It’s difficult to tell what’s going on. From the many sources of data I’ve examined, some have been polluted by using WVS or WDB II vectors as masks, making them impossible to draw conclusions from. You don’t necessarily even know that has happened, making almost all sources of data suspect. LANDSAT data mostly shows nothing, though there are hints. Without someone (else) just going out and looking, I can’t draw many conclusions other than that there IS a seamount there reaching within 40&nsp;m of the surface. That part is pretty clear. It’s not 1,400 m. Parts of it might nearly reach the surface. Strebe (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Conformality of the stereographic projection[edit]

Please stop destroying valuable contribution. Read the conformality – it IS DEFINED as preserving angles of curves intersection, and it is good and important to mention that in the article. Conformality, in general, does NOT GUARANTEE preserving ANY OTHER type of angles. In particular, any (spherical) triangle on a sphere has sum of its angles greater than 180° while its stereographic image on the plane has the sum equal 180°. This implies respective angles of the two triangles MUST differ (at least one of them), so conformality in general is NOT 'preserving angles'. --CiaPan (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You’re not wrong. It’s just that your edit goes into more detail than necessary without being complete enough to be good. The very article you reference, conformality, states verbatim, “In mathematics, a conformal map is a function which preserves angles.” Later on, it does talk about intersecting curves, but with greater context: “A map, f: U \rightarrow V\qquad with U,V \subset \mathbb{R}^n is called conformal (or angle-preserving) at a point u_0 if it preserves oriented angles between curves through u_0 with respect to their orientation (i.e., not just the magnitude of the angle).” The Stereographic article does not include that greater context, and doesn’t need to. It links to conformal is so readers can learn more about it if they want. The usual pithy explanation for conformality is that a conformal map “preserves angles”. The Stereographic article is not about conformality, so it doesn’t need to go into detail. Meanwhile, your argument about spherical triangles is nonsense. No, the stereographic image of a spherical triangle on the plane does not have vertices that sum to 180°. The sum is the same as on the sphere. It’s not as if a spherical triangle maps to a Euclidean triangle on the plane. Strebe (talk) 02:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Grammatical ambiguities[edit]

"The surface of a sphere, or another three-dimensional object".

is that meant to be "(the surface of a sphere), or another three-dimensional object"?

or is it meant to be "the surface of (a sphere, or another three-dimensional object)" ?

Clearly, it is meant to be the second, but the IP user parsed it the first way, and thence concluded that it was erroneous and in need of correction, and became upset when you reverted it to the 'incorrect' version. My edit removes the grammatical ambiguity. Okay? DS (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

First, you need to move this discussion to the article’s talk page, not mine. I will copy and past all this there.
Second, the phrase you changed was not as you wrote above. You’ve added a comma that didn’t exist and you’re using “another” instead of “other” and you’ve changed “body” to “object”. The full sentence was, “A map projection is any method of representing the surface of a sphere or other three-dimensional body on a plane.” There is no defensible way to read that as, “A map projection is any method of representing the surface… or other three-dimensional body on a plane.” It cannot be read that way because “the surface” otherwise does not refer to anything. The reader simply does not understand English or the topic well enough, as is clear from “his” edits that produced clearly incorrect results. Your “correction” does not resolve anything. If I can misread the original the way the objecting editor did, then I can misread your “correction” as well. I do not agree that just because some random person amongst thousands misread the text, that something is wrong or ambiguous, especially when his “correction” was clearly wrong. Strebe (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.186.8.148 (talk) 07:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I don't know the subject matter enough to have an opinion, but it would probably be beneficial to everyone if you toned it back just a notch Strebe. Regardless of who is right on the merits of the discussion, the discussion appears to be taking place in good faith, and poking people with sharp sticks simply because you feel your perspective is the only correct one seldom produces consensus. So please consider a less confrontational way to communicate. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 14:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I will stick to the facts, but I do not agree that discussion is taking place in good faith. To this moment, the IP editor has not acknowledged a single contrary piece of evidence. He has deleted the authoritative reference and supplied none of his own, merely calling it “bad”. Whatever his agenda is, it is not Wikipedia’s. Strebe (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure you understand that it is difficult to always guess the faith of the editor when you are very unfamiliar with the subject matter. It is difficult to see inside the mind of an editor. I request only to make sure we aren't making a victim out of someone, IF they are in the wrong. Any help you can provide that makes it more clear where the problem lies is helpful. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 16:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
No, my agenda is in fact Wikipedia's (viz. an accurate entry), and once again you're not assuming good faith, in violation of policy. I'm a mathematician so you can understand, I hope, the perspective that I bring. In mathematics a common sphere is 2-dimensional, period. This is intuitively obvious by asking 'How many coordinates are necessary to specify a point on a sphere?' And the answer is 'two'. I understand that sometime 'sphere' is used colloquially, to describe, for example, a soccer ball. This is a geometry we would call a 'ball', not a 'sphere'. Moreover, while map projections in our daily life are typically from 2d curved space (like the surface of the Earth) to 2d flat space (like a road map), this need not be the case, and I believe that the article should reflect that.184.186.8.148 (talk) 02:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Your definition of accurate is inaccurate and you are not the authority of what is accurate. Your claimed credentials are irrelevant. I provided a citation from the most authoritative expert in cartographic map projections in the 20th century. You completely ignored it and worse, you deleted it under your personal theory that it was “bad”. That’s not allowed. Do you not understand that your alleged credentials are irrelevant? You may well be a differential geometer, but has it occurred to you that some of the editors involved are actually expert in the topic and of the relevant literature? What matters is what the literature has to say, not your opinion or mine.
You seem to believe that this topic is a proper subset of differential geometry. It is not. It has its own literature and application, and while the mathematics of projection are the same either way, the terminology differs, the notational conventions differ, and most importantly, the field of map projections has a strong overlap with geodesy and whole host of concerns outside of differential geometry. If you have not read J.P. Snyder, L.P. Lee, and Deetz & Adams, then you are not an expert in this field. Your conventions are not the conventions of the map projections literature, and you cannot enforce them outside your field. When you blather on about only needing two coordinates and about how there’s nothing special about those dimensions and that you can’t project without losing some features and on and on, you’re completely wasting everyone’s time. The people you’re addressing are far beyond that. It’s not that people don’t get it; it’s that what you are saying is irrelevant. You are talking about a different topic and as much as you want this to be the topic you are talking about, it is not. Strebe (talk) 04:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
You are violating several wikipedia policies, including WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:GOODFAITH. Moreover, your representation of the credential policy is not correct. Credentials are not "irrelevant", but are to be weighed by individual editors as they see fit ([i]cf.[/i], WP:CRED). I am not "blather[ing]", I am a thoughtful person giving my views on that matter.
The title of the article is not "cartographic map projections". It is true if that were the article your view would be correct, since cartography is the practice of making maps, which are, at least to the present day, all two-dimensional. But this is an article about map projections generally, and maps can be of any dimension (check out, [i]e.g.[/i], http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map). The defining point with a projection, conceptually, is that you're going from something curved to something flat and that is impossible to do without "damage" of some sort. That it's a sphere is most common but not necessary. I understand that mathematical conventions are not your conventions, and that is fine. That fact does not imply that mathematical conventions are irrelevant to the article. My view is that mathematical conventions are relevant to the article--indeed essential to it. Why? Among other things, (1) A map projection is a fundamentally [i]mathematical[/i] process and not a matter of convention; (2) there is substantial mathematical discussion and notation in the article; (3) some sentences in the article are false no matter whether you take my approach or yours ([i]e.g.[/i] " a map projection is any method of 'flattening' into a plane a continuous surface having curvature in all three spatial dimensions" (you need not have curvature in all dimensions to produce a projection)).
I made an edit here. I agree that we need not get into the notion of higher-dimensional projections for the purposes of the article. But we should not say that a sphere is 3-dimensional, because that is simply factually false, despite the colloquial usage and whatever your personalized usage is too. If you are willing to concede that in the article I'm happy to remove the tag and not worry about the more obscure concerns of dimensionality.184.186.8.148 (talk) 06:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
“But we should not say that a sphere is 3-dimensional, because that is simply factually false, despite the colloquial usage and whatever your personalized usage is too.”
You seem offended when I interpret your behavior. You know what offends me? That you have consistently ignored the citations I have given for my assertions and ignored engaging any facts inconvenient to your position. Calling it my “personalize usage” is offensive, 184.186.8.148. I couldn’t care less if you interpret my behavior; that’s what people do and have to do, and the only difference between people in that regard is whether they voice that interpretation or not. If you’re right in your interpretation of my behavior then I have nothing to get offended about; if you’re wrong, I can’t imagine why I should care; and if you’re somewhere in between then maybe you’ve even given me something to think about. But when you repeatedly, consistently set up straw men to deflect attention from the salient matters, when you ignore all evidence that contradicts you, when you call definitions matters of fact rather than of definition and further insist that yours are the only true ones despite robust, reliable evidence to the contrary, you have shut down any means to converse or resolve anything. And that offends me.
And because it offends me, I will continue to interpret your behavior. Your purpose here is to win, at any price, even if you have to throw the truth under the bus. And that offends me too.
Meanwhile what matters for content is WP:VERIFIABILITY, not your assertions, not your unverifiable credentials, and not your application of conventions contrary to those prevalent in the domain. There is nothing to talk about when your only standard of correctness is yourself. Since there is nothing to talk about, you are not welcome on my talk page. I will delete anything further you post. Strebe (talk) 05:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I won't post anything further on your Talk page, if that is your wish. Be aware that I have placed a request on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.184.186.8.148 (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion[edit]

Peacedove.svg

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Map projection".

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 00:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer[edit]

Olive branch drawing.svg

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. MGray98 (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for an informative talk page discussion[edit]

I've had an account for some time but only recently started actively participating in editing. I appreciate your comments in the talk page discussion Talk:Flat_Earth#Accuracy_of_Hebrew_Bible_wording_fixed. I found your references to and descriptions of WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT to be helpful and clarifying for a new editor. Thanks for providing thorough comments. Wrenoud (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Wrenoud. Thanks for the kindly words, and welcome to Wikipedia! I look forward to seeing many productive edits. Strebe (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

edit unto on fisheye[edit]

hi, don't you think we need an example of a fisheye lens with this projection in the article? Cogiati (talk) 16:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

No. That violates WP:SPAMBAIT. That link is wrong for so many reasons: 1. Providing examples is supposed to help a reader understand a concept by linking it to something the reader already knows. Meanwhile practically no readers are going to know about that lens. 2. The page linked to is not at all informative. 3. Linking to any particular lens as an example is nothing but an advertisement. 4. There is no reason to choose that lens as an example over any other lens. Strebe (talk) 02:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Set of map projections[edit]

Hi Strebe, I thought I'd give you a heads up that I have opened a feature pictures nomination for the set of images of map projections that you created. If you'd like to weigh in on the discussion, the page is here. Cheers, Cowtowner (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Cowtowner, many thanks. Your nomination is gratifying. To avoid any conflict of interest, I’ll avoid weighing into that petition unless to correct some technical error. Here are some more images not in the list you give:
  • File:Cassini_projection_SW.jpg
  • File:Central_cylindric_projection_square.JPG
  • File:Chamberlin_trimetric_projection_SW.jpg
  • File:Cylindrical_equal-area_projection_SW.jpg
  • File:Mercator_projection_Square.JPG
  • File:Peirce_quincuncial_projection_SW_20W_tiles.JPG
  • File:Peirce_quincuncial_projection_SW_20W.JPG (in preference to the listed Peirce)
Strebe (talk) 05:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for points these out. I've changed the Peirce one and added the projections of high resolution with their own articles (Chamberlin, Cylindrical equal-area and Cassini) to the nomination. I think the tiled Peirce one could be a FP, too, but to keep things simple I've left it out. Cowtowner (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Natural Earth projection[edit]

Can you create a sample world map in the Natural Earth projection? I want to add one into my article. Czech is Cyrillized (talk) 02:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Strebe (talk) 06:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
And, you might weigh in here if you have an opinion. Strebe (talk) 07:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Sandy Island, New Caledonia[edit]

Thanks for the correction, as you have understood, i'm french speaker. Have a nice day/evening, Hatonjan (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Map Projections Set[edit]

Azimuthal equidistant projection SW.jpg
An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status
Your image, File:Azimuthal equidistant projection SW.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 21:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

[Also 46 others, not listed]

wow just saw these, good job strebe , silly idea but can the thumbnail versions of these appear in the maprojections template ?EdwardLane (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
EdwardLane, thanks. As for the template… ooh, you are determined to construct the largest template ever on Wikipedia! ;-) Strebe (talk) 08:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Made me laugh out loud there EdwardLane (talk) 08:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Design Barnstar.png The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
For the Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Map Projections Set. Thanks for all the work on this. Pine 07:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Advises and discussion regarding improvements on articles[edit]

Hi there, i write this to you because i notice that you are a regular editor of the World map article, this section particulary involves recent modifications in the article as well further improvements. One thing: The way you left the article honestly looks ugly and incomplete, for example, the "Map projections" section looks rather unfinished and rachitic, with only one map on the lower row, we need to put more maps there to make it look decent. Other thing, you removed the map who adressed human displacement without a reason at all, the map in turn is based on a work made by a cartographer recognized and with publications on cartography fields [4]. Another things: I notice that the world map who adresses the winkel tripel projection is repeated and also appears as the mollweide map, one of these must be removed in favor of variety. In this kind of articles the more variety the better, It also would be appropiate to shrink a bit the heading paragraph's tumnails, so these maps don't invade the space destined to other sections. Finally, I'm thinking of writting a section dedicated to "Early maps", i was looking it up yesterday and i found the sources to do so. Thank you. Czixhc (talk) 00:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and good work, Czixhc.
  • “the "Map projections" section looks rather unfinished and rachitic, with only one map on the lower row, we need to put more maps there to make it look decent.” There is no fixed number of maps in a row. It depends on your browser window.
  • “you removed the map who adressed human displacement.” I have two comments about this. First, none of the galleries is intended to be an exhaustive display of maps of that category. The selection is always going to be haphazard and arbitrary, but the emphasis should be on material that broadly samples what is well represented in the literature. The theme of the map I removed is not well represented in the literature. Second, I cannot make any sense of it. I read the description several times. It still made no sense. If it confuses me, it will confuse most people.
  • the world map who adresses the winkel tripel projection is repeated and also appears as the mollweide map… The section on thematic maps focuses on the theme, not the projection. All else being equal, I agree a similar map on a different projection would be better, if available. But just because the same projection appears twice does not suggest to me any problem, since the article is not about projections specifically.
  • It also would be appropiate to shrink a bit the heading paragraph's tumnails… Wikipedia guidelines give a standard width of 220 pixels for thumbnails, but also states, Images containing important detail (for example, a map, diagram, or chart) may need larger sizes than usual to make them readable..
  • Finally, I'm thinking of writting a section dedicated to "Early maps" Thank you; the article needs much improvement. Strebe (talk) 03:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • There is no fixed number of maps in a row. It depends on your browser window. I really doubt that it doesn't look rather bad on your window, or in most standard windows, and heading images invading the space of other sections is something unadmisible.
I’m sorry; I have no idea what you are seeing, but what I see looks just fine. The “heading images” do extend beyond the lede section, but those images are not specific to the lede; they illustrate the entire article. Also, the van Schagen map will go away soon; it was only added recently because it became a Featured Image and it needed a home. Strebe (talk) 06:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I have two comments about this. First, none of the galleries is intended to be an exhaustive display of maps of that category. The selection is always going to be haphazard and arbitrary, but the emphasis should be on material that broadly samples what is well represented in the literature. The theme of the map I removed is not well represented in the literature. Second, I cannot make any sense of it. I read the description several times. It still made no sense. If it confuses me, it will confuse most people. To add two maps (because you keep one) is not to transform it on an exhaustive display, i was also thinking about adding a map regarding population density, I also don't see how the description confuses you, is rather clear, what is the part you have a problem with?.
Again, the theme of the map I removed does not appear commonly in the literature; it does not belong because of that. As for confusing: In this map the skin color is utilized as a way of highlighting (when compared to maps utilizing population data from earlier centuries) the effects of colonisation as well as migratory trends in the last century. How a map that purports to show skin color relates to colonization and migratory trends is completely obscure. Does the map show present skin color distributions? Historical? If one or the other, then it is a static map that says nothing about the dynamic flow of populations. The description suggests comparing against earlier maps, but those earlier maps are not present here. Also, as a criticism of the thematic presentation, it’s not clear what the value is of presenting the statical information by country, especially since such data compared against historical maps cannot match because country boundaries have changed. And so on. There’s just no context for this map. Strebe (talk)
My browsers (I tried several) don’t show any “invasion”. A map is not “readable” vs. “unreadable”. It is “more or less readable”. The larger it is, the more readable it is. Strebe (talk) 06:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The section on thematic maps focuses on the theme, not the projection. All else being equal, I agree a similar map on a different projection would be better, if available. But just because the same projection appears twice does not suggest to me any problem, since the article is not about projections specifically. In such case it would be better to include both statements on the description of a single imgage, not to repeat it don't you think? Czixhc (talk) 03:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I think the section showing projections should name the projections. I think the section on thematic maps should describe the theme. There are image descriptions in the thematic section that mention the projection; there’s no good reason for that. Those descriptions need to be cleaned up a lot. Strebe (talk) 06:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I've done various improvements: moved one of the historical maps of the heading secion to the section historical maps, i moved the pacific centric projection map from the thematic maps section to the map projections section, added a map for population density and removed the heading template, since all the references seem to be alright, I still have to write the early maps section, but it's something. Czixhc (talk) 00:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I’ve commented on the Talk:World map page; any further discussion should go there. Strebe (talk) 03:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
See the new thread opened by Czixhc at WP:RSN. Dougweller (talk) 11:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit on spherical earth[edit]

[5], Well, we added what source said, so either we have to add what source is saying or nothing, but for now, i think it's better to keep what source said, or current edit will work too

I’m surprised the source so grossly repeats itself. In any case, paraphrasing is not only allowed but encouraged, for obvious reasons. Let’s leave it concise. Strebe (talk) 17:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Also one more thing, in that same section of "india" both of the sources no where mentions "calculated by Eratosthenes in the 3rd century BC", only about the current one, so that line should be removed. Justicejayant (talk) 16:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

That’s fine. I don’t know why it’s in there. It’s out of context. Strebe (talk) 17:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
On Flat earth, removed the "main:Indian astronomy", because that article doesn't support what is written in this article anyway. Justicejayant (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Spherical Earth, here, you must provide a explanatory edit summary that why you reverted the sourced material, which is agreed by others. Also provide on talk page that why you remove them, unless you should not revert them. Thanks Justicejayant (talk) 10:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter[edit]

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

Eurasian Eagle-Owl Maurice van Bruggen.JPG

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey[edit]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Terrain[edit]

Hi, you wrote in an edit summary:

It’s not about “terrain”

The removal of my text (and rewrite of yours) was fine, I just wondered what you meant by that comment, since the rewritten text speaks of "land", "continents" and "regions" - why are those terms OK in this context but "terrain" isn't?  Card Zero  (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello  Card Zero . Thanks for the note. “Terrain” sounds fairly specific to physical features of land such as its topography and vegetation. Yet the terms large scale and small scales refer to any map, even if it shows no planetary features at all. Whether continents could be included in the notion of “terrain” is debatable, and nations certainly are not included. The description in place now uses those geographic features as examples but does not imply they are necessary features of the map. Does that make sense? Strebe (talk) 03:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, OK, a map could be of purely political boundaries, or of buildings, and neither of those is really terrain. Thank you for my edification. (The article also mentions a map of a virus as an example of the extreme end of the large scale, which I find a little odd, like Feynman's story of asking for "a map of the cat".)  Card Zero  (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Gall-Peters Projection[edit]

I would argue that a 180-degree rotation is quite a relevant difference. Furthermore, the article opens the door to explaining the reasoning behind the use of that specific map by stating that "prominence to countries in less technologically developed parts of the world that are otherwise underestimated". Finally, while I understand that you strive for editorial cohesion, the strength of Wikipedia lies in the non-linear connections made between various articles, rather than being just a straight forward encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.217.20.146 (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I have copied your comments on the Talk:Gall–Peters projection page, where it belongs. Please continue any discussion there. Strebe (talk) 07:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Schmidt and Gauss-Boaga[edit]

Hey Strebe! I just got the message that you reverted me at Lambert azimuthal equal-area projection. I agree that the Schmidt net should be its own article. It is also a separate article on de-wiki: de:Schmidtsches Netz. Do you want to split the articles? Also, I saw that you specialize in projections. Can you take a look at Gauss-Boaga projection when you have time. Thanks. --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. Strebe (talk) 07:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you :) --Tobias1984 (talk) 08:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

POTD notification[edit]

Hi Strebe,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Collignon projection SW.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 19, 2014. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2014-04-19. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Hammer retroazimuthal projection[edit]

Are the two projections supposed to be the same size, or is the front supposed to be smaller than the other? I want to combine them into a single image for POTD, but the article doesn't tell me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello again Crisco 1492. The images are correctly sized in relation to each other. You can overlay them at full resolution. Strebe (talk) 06:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • So to put them side-by-side I'd keep them at their current resolutions (i.e. one at 2,060 × 2,060, and the other at 1,526 × 1,034)? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
That is correct. If you overlay the smaller on top of the larger and line up the edges of the "wings" of the smaller with the inner perimeter of the larger, you will see how to position the smaller vertically with respect to the larger. Strebe (talk) 08:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • How would you rather present the images on the main page, side-by-side or combined? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Just another ping; I can't go forward with this without feedback from someone who knows projections better than I do. For a 2D representation of the Hammer retroazimuthal projection, is it better to have the two overlayed or presented side-by-side? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
That’s a very interesting presentation you’ve come up with! I had not realized the result of putting the front hemisphere upside-down would result in a symmetric display. If one were to change some definitions a bit, the composite would be a reasonable display. However, the correct presentation is to have the front hemisphere •in front• of the back hemisphere such that the “tubes” overlay and the front obscures the back. I can do this if you like, but since part of the map is thereby obscured, it’s no longer a full-world map. Do we want that? Strebe (talk) 22:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Probably not, but it's worth having on Commons as something we can link to. After your explanation, I think it would probably be better to run this side-by-side (so it is still a full-world presentation), perhaps, with a link to an overlaid presentation for the curious. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Here it is.

Perfect, thanks. Here's the notification (not like you needed it, but...). Note that I will be image mapping the main page version to link to the individual files, rather than this combined form.

Hi Strebe,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Hammer retroazimuthal projection combined2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 5, 2014. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2014-05-05. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

POTD notification[edit]

Hi Strebe,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Orthographic projection SW.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on June 4, 2014. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2014-06-04. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again, Crisco 1492. I have corrected the text of the image. For some reason the article has been proclaiming nonsense forever. Strebe (talk) 07:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Orthographic projection[edit]

Hi Strebe,

Thank you for contacting me on this issue. My concern with the title "Orthographic projection (cartography)" is that parenthetical disambiguators are intended to be used to disambiguate, not to indicate subcategories; that title therefore suggests that there is no connection between this article and the main Orthographic projection article, when they are in fact very closely related. Orthographic projection is a mathematical concept which is applied to cartography, and it is this application that is the subject of the article in question. As such, whatever title we use should have a title that does not use a parenthetical disambiguator. Is there another title with which you would be satisfied? If your concern with the title "Orthographic projection map" is that the word "map" is not specific to geography, perhaps we can use the title "Orthographic projection in cartography". I hope we will be successful in finding a mutually satisfactory title for this article.

Neelix (talk) 16:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Neelix. Thank you for working with me on this. I do not see anything in WP:NCDAB or WP:NATURAL that suggests your interpretation of the use of parenthetical disambiguation. Note there is an even stronger reason why “Orthographic projection map” is not an apt title: The article is about the projection, not about maps made from it. One could imagine an article dedicated to (for example, historical) maps based on the projection with nothing more than a brief characterization of the projection. Meanwhile I cannot think of any better title for the article than what it already has. Indeed, there are more articles that properly should take the same treatment, such as Stereographic projection. That article ought to be separated into the more general mathematical form (which is exceedingly commonly used in many domains of mathematics and physics) but also have its own treatment for cartography. In that case, again, there is no other useful way to disambiguate. In the case of the perspective projection, we fortunately have a name extant in the literature we were able to use that is unambiguously cartographic: General perspective projection. Meanwhile the broader category of perspective is handle by Perspective (graphical), which is a redirect from Perspective projection. Strebe (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for getting back to me so soon. The problem is outlined in the policy on article title format, which states that we should "not use titles suggesting that one article forms part of another... For example, an article on transport in Azerbaijan should not be given a name like 'Azerbaijan/Transport' or 'Azerbaijan (transport)' – use Transport in Azerbaijan." Similarly in this case, the article is about orthographic projection in cartography, therefore "Orthographic projection in cartography" is an appropriate title, but "Orthographic projection (cartography)" and "Orthographic projection/Cartography" are not. What do you think of a move to "Orthographic projection in cartography"? Neelix (talk) 00:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Article titles#Article title format policy you quote is inapplicable to this situation. The explanation and example they give has nothing to do with disambiguation, which is what WP:NCDAB and WP:NATURAL specifically allow the use of parentheticals for. Notice in the Azerbaijan example, “transport” does not disambiguate Azerbaijan. Nobody says only “Azerbaijan” while meaning “transport in Azerbaijan”. Meanwhile, the term “orthographic projection” alone usually refers to the cartographic usage, but may also refer to the more general mathematical description, depending on context. (And actually, orthographic view or projection is even more widely used than any of these articles acknowledge. In computer games, it generally refers to an oblique view, typically 45°, of the game space.) Strebe (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I think this is the point on which we disagree. Disambiguation has nothing to do with the orthographic projection articles. Our editing guidelines on disambiguation state that "disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous—when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia." In the case of orthographic projection, however, the term does not refer to two distinct concepts ambiguously, because there is only one topic for which there are subtopics; the cartography article is a subarticle of the main orthographic projection article because the cartography article explains one application of the subject of the main article. This particular application is a very prominent one, but no amount of prominence negates the fact that it is an application of the main article's subject and therefore is a subtopic. Even if prominence of subtopics made them ambiguous with the main topic (which it doesn't), I am not convinced that the cartographic application of orthographic projection is the most common application as you suggest. Doing a Google Books search with the search phrase "orthographic projection", I am finding a lot of books about its applications to computer graphics and engineering design; the cartography books don't seem as numerous, or at least not obviously so. What are your thoughts? Neelix (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
This seems hyperbolic to me: Disambiguation has nothing to do with the orthographic projection articles. Disambiguation certainly has something to do with it. When people say “orthographic projection” outside of any context, the meaning is ambiguous because the same term applies either narrowly or broadly and it’s not clear which at the time. Even if the cartographic usage were a proper subset of the broader usage, the meaning would be ambiguous. But in point of fact it is not even that. Abstractly (but not notationally) the mathematics of the map projection intersect with the broader usage, but there is also a whole body of concerns that the cartographic usage covers that are not part of the mathematical usage. So, neither do I agree that a proper subset cannot be the subject of disambiguation; nor do I agree that the cartographic projection is merely a subset of the mathematical usage. Perhaps it is time to refer this matter to a neutral opinion. In any case, please do •something• about the current situation; “Orthographic projection map” is just not good and you’ve left several pages pointing to redirects.
And, by the way, orthographic projection is hardly unique in using a parenthetical disambiguator in more or less analogous situations. See The Hobbit (film_series), Map (mathematics), Map (computer science), Map (higher-order function), Perspective (visual), Perspective (graphical), Perspective (geometry), Water (classical element), Tone (linguistics), Tone (musical instrument), Spectrum (functional analysis), Spectrum (homotopy theory), Ballade (forme fixe), and who knows what else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strebe (talkcontribs)
I am not using hyperbole, as my previously cited definition of disambiguation demonstrates. Leaving pages pointing to redirects is not considered a bad thing on Wikipedia. You may be interested to read the guideline about fixing links to redirects that are not broken. The main article is not specific to a particular usage of orthographic projection; it is about orthographic projection in all its usages, therefore its usage in cartography is a subtopic of that main topic. Considering that you have requested that I implement some solution, I have implemented the one I have been recommending; the article is now called "Orthographic projection in cartography". I could continue to address your concerns and arguments, but if you intend to initiate a move discussion, I will save my responses for the broader discussion. Please let me know if you initiate such a discussion. Neelix (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

POTD notification[edit]

Hi Strebe,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:HEALPix projection SW.svg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on July 10, 2014. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2014-07-10. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

  • As I probably don't need to point out explicitly, I could barely make heads or tails of the article we have (rather technical if I say so myself). I'd appreciate if you could have a look at the blurb and, hopefully, make it both accurate and accessible. If you don't have the time for both, accuracy first. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello again Crisco 1492. Thanks for the notice and all the work you put into the POTD activities. I simplified the caption for the HEALPix image. I’m not going to try do to anything with the article itself, I don’t think; that would be hard to make it more accessible without just completely rewriting it. I can’t take that on right now, unfortunately. Strebe (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks, it looks great! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Monokini: Etymology[edit]

You might want to take a look at the etymology section in the Bikini article. It has sourced, cited and reviewed information that probably can be used here. Aditya(talkcontribs) 06:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I found that just after I made my edit. But the sources don’t say what the text said. None of the sources implied that Gernreich thought the bi- in bikini was from Latin or that some “error” was involved. Really, it would be surprising if monokini were the result of ignorance rather than wordplay. Strebe (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

POTD notification[edit]

Hi Strebe,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Two-point equidistant projection SW.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on August 30, 2014. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2014-08-30. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I'd also be much obliged if you (or a talk page stalker) could add even 500 characters to the article, perhaps explaining the distortions that you mentioned on the article's talk page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Equidistant Conic Projection[edit]

I hear you're the cartographer around here! Therefore, I formally request that you create a good image for the Equidistant Conic Projection. It's a somewhat aesthetically unappealing sample at the moment. Thanks in advance! 72.83.246.25 (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. Strebe (talk) 03:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

A small info for you[edit]

I am not editing again on tamarind again but a small information for you that In Arabic language هندي means anything from India. هندي means Hindi or originated from India. So when Arabs are stating in their own language that this fruit is from India then why I cannot add any information in Hindi then?. Anyway no point to argue. Keep your dictatorship intact.Mintoo44 (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I can only imagine you don’t understand what’s going on. It does not matter what the Arabic word means. What matters is that Arabic is the source of the English word “tamarind”. That is why it is listed at the top, just like etymology for any Wikipedia article’s subject. The meaning of the word is not authoritative as to the origin of the species. Also you keep adding the Urdu and Hindic names for tamarind in a paragraph in the body, but they are already there. Strebe (talk) 20:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)