User talk:Aliveness Cascade

Middle-earth edits Hobbit edits

Aliveness Cascade, I'm finding that I have to do a great deal of correcting and restoring after each one of your Middle-earth hobbit edits, as important facts get deleted or elided. If you feel the need to remove something, it'd be really nice if you began on the talk page, where I or other editors can explain why these details matter (if it's not totally transparent).

For instance, it might seem insignificant to you, but the fact that the Shire was in the northwest of Middle-earth relates directly to the fact that England is in the northwest of the Old World (Eurasia); Tolkien actually states in a letter that Hobbiton was at the latitude of Oxford (and that he himself was "a hobbit"). Thus, the northwestness of the Shire is not a trivial detail, but a key clue to the mapping of the Shire to England, indeed to the English midlands. Such examples could easily be multiplied. Many thanks for your attention. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for talking. I disagree with you!

I added informational content to the Fictional History section, *and* fixed basic errors in fact, and don't agree with your reversion of it at all!

As to northwest, its significance was not given in the lead, so I don't see any value of it being there, unless its significance is explained there .... and I think that would overweigh the lead.

I'm not aware of you "correcting and restoring" previous edits, and very much disagree with your characterisation of having to do "a great deal of correcting and restoring after each one of your Middle-earth Hobbit edits". I was actually under the impression that most of my previous edits had "stuck" (And I still think this is the case!).

At the beginning of The Hobbit, Tolkien describes their appearance and character together. I was going to add more info from there, to improve that section. I disagree with you I really do! We already have a Lifestyle and culture section which a fantastic section label, as would Appearance and character be, especially as Tolkien describes them together! Actually this section includes age: it *should* be Appearance and characteristics!!

I think inclusion of the One Ring when we're introducing the basic facts of hobbits is an unnecessary technical distraction, I totally stand by my edit of simply saying that some of Tolkien's main characters lived significantly longer. We're should be explaining basic hobbit facts, not requiring folks to follow a link to get understanding, which will also massively spoil the books. If we can avoid spoilers in the opening parts of an article, and keep it simple, that is a really good thing.

We have a different sensibility, I suggest, that's all! Which is wikipedia for you.

I very much disagree with you, and stand by my edits. @Chiswick Chap: ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, I have carefully explained one instance where the evidence points extremely clearly to why my original text, and reversion to it, was correct, and that evidence from both Tolkien's own letters and scholarly criticism is available to everyone, so disagreeing with it is, to say the least, a rather difficult position to sustain. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I've no problem with the "northwest" being there - it's a snippet. What I'm saying there it is pointless if its significance is not explained in the article - which it isn't. It would seem to fit into the Lifestyle and culture section, if you wished to add it.

And what about the other stuff? Please do me the courtesy of addressing my arguments. I had the courtesy to respond to you! @Chiswick Chap: ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

It's always hard to tell with text rather than any wider range of cues to someone's emotions, but the exclamation marks followed by "And what about the other stuff?" comes across as needlessly aggressive, which makes many people much less likely to wish to reply, except possibly in kind.

However, I agree we have a "different sensibility"; perhaps mine is British and yours is from someplace else, I don't know - there's not much to be said on that one, except that Tolkien was British, and accordingly we try to give a British sensibility, spelling, syntax, and to some extent style to Middle-earth articles, taking the "British English" preference on the project as a guide. On the use of bluelinks to other Middle-earth articles, these are all used hundreds of times in the project, and it would be wearying for readers to have them all glossed at every instance; readers are not obliged to navigate the links if not interested, and the pop-up links tool enables anyone who likes an instant display to have one without following the link in any case. I doubt very much it will be profitable to argue at length over details, but to take one example "THE hobbit" is of course Bilbo, and his long life is certainly attributable to the Ring, and the Ring is of enormous significance in the legendarium; so it seems slightly bizarre even to think of justifying its mention: it's definitely relevant and no mistake. I suggest we drop the stick now and leave the matter at that: I know I can explain all my actions, and I hope you can. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I *thanked* you earlier for restoring the british english "homely" I had myself put it earlier, and somebody had changed to "homelike". Have you confused someone else's edits with mine? That may explain the "I have to do a great deal of correcting and restoring after each one of your edits", which does not, in my view, fit with what's happened. With regard to one ring, I've already said I think its good to avoid unnecesary spoilers in the early part of the article, and the need to click on a link to understand. Yes, a sensibility. The section is describing hobbits in general, and it's unnecessary. Why spoil the Lord of the Rings for readers of The Hobbit coming to this article? @Chiswick Chap: ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Appearance and characteristics also much more interesting to reader than just "Appearance" ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Um, you think so, I don't, we were in the midst of a discussion, and and now you are edit-warring without waiting for an answer. That is always unacceptable. Please stop at once. Properly, you would undo it and apologise. I'll consider what to do. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

It didn't occur to me that coming back with a very small modified edit (not a revert) would be considered edit-warring - but I take your point about doing it while the discussion was open. Honestly, I didn't think you'd be back. I'm glad you've come back to discuss. Thank you. ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

FYI, before you intervened with your edits tonight, I was going to add another thing to then "Appearance and Character" section, namely, a snippet from T's opening description in The Hobbit - something like : they have nibble fingers, and "good-natured faces, and laugh deep fruity laughs". (Because, in my view, the hobbits' character has as much importance as there appearance. Tolkien also describes appearance and character together, and I think it's easiest for us to do that as well. These characteristics were so important to Tolkien's description of hobbits - he put them right up from with their physical appearance). I was trying to work out how to reference that when I got your alert. And I still like the idea of adding that. I wish we could agree that that is good. Isn't this what fan loves about hobbits? ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for leaving out the nibble fingers, that would be what Shippey calls a failure of tone (like the animistic stone-throwing giants). I don't recall Tolkien saying anything about nibble fingers, and we certainly aren't an uncited/unciteable fan-source.

On appearance and characteristics, thank you for the comments. Since "Characteristics" includes appearance, habits, and other aspects, it's a wider term than "Appearance", so let's use it instead. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! @Chiswick Chap:

"nimble" LOL! my typos are getting worse! I am referring to this quote: "have long clever brown fingers, good-natured faces, and laugh deep fruity laughs", from the opening of The Hobbit (page 13 of this edition) ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I do agree with the retention of the "northwest of Middle-earth" bit, for the reason that it connects the Shire with Middle-earth - a connection which otherwise would not be made in the lead. ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paul Wild Observatory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Springer.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Alexander Technique

Your recent editing history at Alexander Technique shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Hipal (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Thames Head article

Hello.

Please always use converters when adding imperial or metric units in articles. In English Wikipedia articles, both units of measurement need to be included, but not just one unit of measurement. See Template:Convert.

Thank you. 31.200.12.202 (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)