User talk:Elphion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
If you post to my talk page, I will usually reply here.
If I post to your talk page, I will watch for a response there.

Contents

Shortcuts[edit]

Warning templates
PageName is optional

See additional templates and examples of output

جادوگر[edit]

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Elphion, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  The Ogre 01:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

King Lopez[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. At least one of your recent edits was not constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. King Lopez Contribs 07:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello take a look at your edit It looks like you blanked a large section of the page. Your edit is in yellow. Mine is in green. If you are improving the artical it is ok. King Lopez Contribs 07:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok I see now. Sorry for the confustion. King Lopez Contribs 08:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

White Witch[edit]

Well unsourced speculation is not a good thing on Wikipedia, I removed the Turkish example because it was unsourced speculation, but also because for some reason I assumed the pronunciation of the Turkish word was [tsadɯ] (which would be virtually nothing like the pronunciation of Janis and would sound more like sadu to speakers of English) but I see that Turkish alphabet says c represents the same sound as English j. However, it's still quite a stretch and I think there should be some sort of sourcing to include it. This is technically true for the French etymology as well. I suppose that means that I've got a double standard though like you I also think that the French explanation is the more likely one. As for the "supplementary" guide, I personally find it abhorrant when English ad-hoc pronunciations are given for foreign words. Such guides are largely equal with IPA in English words because there's no loss of information, but saying for example that Běijīng is pronounced like "bay jing" omits important phonetic information for Chinese. jar-duh for the Turkish word is especially bad; American readers will read that differently than British ones. I'll fix my goof in the article. I suggest that, to give readers the proper (English) pronunciation we should start the article with it. Something like

Jadis, the White Witch (English pronunciation: /ʒəˈdis/ or zha-DEES) is the villain...

I'd do it myself but I'm not sure what exactly the proper pronunciation is. I'm curious. How do we know that the Disney movie got it wrong? — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 18:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You repeat arguments against use of the IPA that people put forth every once in a while, the strength of which I believe caused the rule allowing respelling guides to be put with IPA. People come to Wikipedia to learn new information and if they come across IPA and don't know it they can do one of two things a) work hard to figure out how to pronounce a word or b) say "ah, it's not that important anyway." — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 19:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
(copied from my response on User talk:aeusoes1) You write, "You repeat arguments against use of the IPA ... " — but there are no arguments there against using IPA; indeed, I wish it were used more universally. I'm simply saying that in some situations (and I think this is one of them), it would be helpful to supply in addition an approximate guide as well. The most elegant tropes are naught but air if the audience fail to hear them. Elphion (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, the things you were saying (not many know IPA, font issues) are things people sometimes say against the IPA though I recognize that you're not anti-IPA. English respelling is fine for English words but for non-English words it is simply wrong. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 00:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Day of Spring![edit]

Saruman[edit]

A couple of initial responses on the talk page. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

treebeard[edit]

Hi thanks for message. I'm using Tuckboriugh just now because I look at the primary referances later aince they take a while to look for in the book. This is just a start. Upon completion I'll use Tolkiens work more often. Hope you understand. LOTRrules (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Not extaly trying to increase my edit count. I just spot mistakes or I want to upgrade the article or add more info in after I press the save button. That way the article improves and I get the edits as a bonus. I'll get proper references later, you should see what I have done with Watcher in the Water after it was finally completed. LOTRrules (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Boromir image[edit]

Just curious why you felt the new image is a better image? Elphion (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be better if we have a high resolution picture. it really brings a good look to the article as well as improves wikipedia's coverage! GLAD TO SEE YOU editing on middle earth's article. thanks, Sushant gupta (talk) 07:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, (1) the image you replaced is pictorially a much better image (the information lost is certainly not compensated by the higher resolution of the new image), and (2) high-resolution makes fair use of copyrighted images harder to establish. I would vote for restoring the previous image. Elphion (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
whether high reso or not; there is no such rule that whether fair use rationale should be lengthy or not. there is no such BIAS. fair use for movie screenshots are not dependent upon the resolution. thanks, Sushant gupta (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'm no expert on free-use. I do see a lot of verbiage in free use justifications about keeping the image limited to a size "necessary to illustrate the article" -- which your image certainly exceeds. If that truly is not relevant, I withdraw that objection. I still think the other image is more "illustrative". Elphion (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
fine i will upload a new image with high resolution with more illustration. Sushant gupta (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

People keep getting things wrong[edit]

You've surely seen, but http://xkcd.com/386/ :) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No I hadn't seen it -- I love it! And all too true. It (or a link) may end up on my User page, when I get around to doing something about it. I like yours, by the way: clean, simple, to the point. Elphion (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Mithrandir[edit]

Good point. I do think the texts need to be separated, and my edits didn't really help with that. If the date information could remain in the Appendices section, and the story part go into the Silmarillion (with citations to the Silmarillion) - I think that would be the best approach, so each book is separate. What do you think? --Davémon (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Smith of Wootton Major[edit]

Hi, I noticed your edits to Smith of Wootton Major today. Thank you very much for adding references. And what good references they are! I'm happier than ever to see my favourite story get its article improved. :) --Kjoonlee 22:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Middle-earth canon[edit]

Hiya. The whole article is original research insomuch as it doesn't have any sources that directly address the subject. If you have sources that do, please add them. I've also added a note on the talk-page as you requested.--Davémon (talk) 09:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Elphion - Nice work on Middle-earth canon.Tttom1 (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Meaning?[edit]

What do you mean the Dol Guldur needs "*lots*" of work? See the talk page that I'v documented in the past few days. Expansion on history, etymology and culture are I'm sure at their peak. However the other sections do look a bit weak I'm sure. All I need are the refs from the Hobbit and unfinished tales, two books which I have not as of yet read. LOTRrules (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I have seen the talk page. See my additions there. I'm not trying to be unfriendly, and I appreciate the effort you've put into the article, but the organization and language need improvement. I hope to interest you in providing that. As the talk page indicates, I think you should address the structure first.  Elphion (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your Narnia Edits[edit]

Thank you for your excellent edits to the Narnia "Reception: influence of religious viewpoints" (including the retitling), a section that was created and mostly written by me, with a lot of critique and input from User:Ashmoo. I'm tempted to restore the footnote on Holbrook's school of thought only because another user edited the section to change "psychoanalytic" to "Freudian" and Holbrook really isn't a Freudian (which is why I put that note in there.) But I'm not in a hurry to do it. But you definitely tightened up the section very nicely. --WickerGuy (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

UUA[edit]

Please see Talk:Christianity and abortion. Spotfixer (talk) 07:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Balrog[edit]

Point taken over the language; "whence" still seems a bit ungainly to me, but there you go. Thanks for editing it! Darth Newdar (talk) 07:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I own the second edition of Unfinished Tales (black cover) in which the mistake is fixed. When I made the edit I thought that the it was a typing error. Darth Newdar (talk) 08:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Saruman[edit]

I'm just fiddling really. 'Appears' > 'seems' was because there were two 'appears' close to each other ("appears to Aragorn ..." and "appears to be"), which is best avoided. 'Before' > 'earlier' was prompted by the thought 'before what?', but doesn't really solve that problem! Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Why, thank you. ;-) I'm still jet-lagged, which may also explain the second one. 4u1e (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
As I say, it may have been the jet-lag. I've got no objections if you want to change it back. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 05:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Good point re the relative timing of Saruman's eastern travels and his leadership of the White Council. 4u1e (talk) 17:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the headsup on my Narnia edit. I was a bit exasperated by the incoherent remarks by the editor on the talk page. In principle, an edit can be both good faith non-vandalism and also BS, if someone isn't thinking clearly. The editor (based on his Narnia Talk page post) seems to be upset both that the films gutted some of Lewis' Christianity and that talking about Lewis borrowing from Christianity somehow implies that Christianity isn't true, this in turn combined with some other logic I can't follow. Aside from the fact that I cannot connect the dots between complaint A and complaint B, the WP article in question is not about the films, and well over half the books published on Narnia seem to be by Christians who darn tootin think it is true, but at WP we need to take a neutral stand on that, as we are neither conservopedia (mostly Christian- not sure if it is still online) nor freethoughtpedia (highly atheistic in tone). But our neutrality on these matters is certainly not a reason for NOT mentioning the Christian influence on Lewis. Weird.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Trilogy[edit]

I know, I know. I seem to remember that he wasn't keen on 'novel' either...so, if book = books I-VI and volume = FOTR, TTT and ROTK, what do you call the whole thing? Any thoughts? :) 4u1e (talk) 06:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

A Modest thanks for a good job[edit]

The Modest Barnstar

Modest Barnstar.png The Modest Barnstar
Although the work you did on reworking the copy of The Magician's Nephew is modest in essence, I was impressed at how you diligently and systematically worked through the article and brought logic, flow and eloquence to the prose and treated it as a whole rather than something to pick at. It is a nice clean piece of editing work in any medium. And you managed to do this without destroying the relationship between the prose and the sources, which took me days of hard work to research and construct into the reworked article, according to my understanding of Wikipedia policies. A little thing, a modest thing, but it gave me, as a relatively new user, a sense of community and trust that there are some editors around who will take you hard work and help to make it shine, which in turn inspires me to keep my own momentum as an editor, so I think you deserve this barnstar... even though it is only a modest one Mesmacat (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Another good Narnia Edit[edit]

Thanks for untangling the Spaghetti of the Narnia and Religion section (mostly written by me). I think you improved it quite a lot. Possibly shouldn't have worked on it and my Master's Thesis at the same time. --WickerGuy (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I just saw this is the 2nd time I've thanked you for re-editing it, though this is a separate late re-edit--WickerGuy (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
That's OK -- I don't mind. You can keep talking if you like :-) Elphion (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:911ct supporters[edit]

Template:911ct supporters has been nominated for deletion by Ice Cold Beer. As this TfD nomination includes objections to the same list of people that is currently in use in Template:911ct, I am inviting you to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. (I am sending this message to you as a current or former editor of Jesse Ventura, following the guideline on multiple messages.) Regards —  Cs32en  11:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Underland[edit]

Thanks a lot for working on my creation, Underland. I have seen that you have dedicated yourself a lot to Narnia on wikipedia! You might also be interested in my other creation, Lantern Waste. Thanks a lot! --Srinivas 09:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

WP Middle-earth says thank you.[edit]

TolkienStar.png The Tolkien Barnstar
May this star shine upon your past and future edits to articles about Middle-earth. De728631 (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your illuminative explanations. Ankh.Morpork 18:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
"Illuminative" is good -- thanks! -- Elphion (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Advise please - I found the Lord of the Rings a tad turgid and dreary. Are there any Middle Earth novels that are more "Hobbitsy" in style and lighter in tone? Ankh.Morpork 21:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
None of the rest of the Middle-earth material is as light as The Hobbit. The Silmarillion is dark, although the essay there on the Rings of Power is interesting. There are snippets in Unfinished Tales that are quite rewarding (it contains some of Tolkien's best writing, in my opinion). But if you enjoyed The Hobbit, I can heartily recommend Farmer Giles of Ham and Smith of Wooton Major (and they should be read in that order) -- both very hobbitish, but not dealing explicitly with Middle-earth. -- Elphion (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

One Ring image[edit]

I think that it would be better to remove the image File:OneTrueRing.JPG from the One Ring's article altogether. Quite apart from it being a completely unofficial "replica" which never existed, it is a blurred picture, and, as you point out, it doesn't really show anything that you can't work out for yourself. As an editor of the One Ring article, I thought I'd ask for another editor's opinion, so what do you think? Thanks, Darth Newdar (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Already discussed on Talk:One Ring. My advice: Be Bold, Andrew. (But do leave an addition to the section on the talk page.) Elphion (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Now deleted. And well done on working out my name! Darth Newdar (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Please come and join the discussion at Christianity and abortion[edit]

There is currently a disagreement about what the Bible and early church teach. Thanks! LCP (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Background colors[edit]

[copied from the Village Pump]

The local stylesheets on en.wikipedia.org have been putting lightly colored backgrounds on non-main namespaces in Monobook for several years. They are pretty light, though, so you may have not noticed them before -- some LCD monitors for instance won't even show the difference between the light blue and white if you have the brightness and contrast set relatively high.
You'll see the specs for this at the top of MediaWiki:Monobook.css in the "light blue section". You can copy-and-paste those bits back to your personal monobook.css and override them back to white if you like. --brion (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Mourne Mountains[edit]

I added some stuff to the caption. Is it better now? Thanks.--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Labyrinth pics[edit]

Hi Elphion, I see you have actually been doing a lot of work on this page recently (contrary to my rude and rather curt remark when re-removing the Schönbusch garden pic) – but your re-inclusion of that pic undermines the essential difference between this article and Maze, which rests on the essential "unicursal labyrinth versus multicursal maze" definition now favoured by modern authorities on the subject. The hedge maze at Schönbusch has dead ends and multiple choices, so it is not a labyrinth, in the strict sense of the word. Please don't put it back! Thanks. Otherwise we might just as well merge Labyrinth and Maze. SiGarb | (Talk) 20:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is ironic: I've written at length about this on Talk:Labyrinth from the other side, supporting the inclusion of the distinction! But it is wrong to be dogmatic about either usage, since some people use the words interchangeably and others don't. Labyrinth as a synonym for unicursal maze is not "the strict sense of the word" (implying that not observing it is incorrect), it is a technical distinction -- useful in some situations, not in others. "Favoured by modern authorities on the subject" distinctly overstates the case: Many well-known authors (including Matthews, Doob, McCullough, and Saward among others) do not use labyrinth so narrowly, and many other authors do not make the distinction habitually.
Labyrinth is (and ought to be) primarily about the mythological idea and how it developed over time. That in itself is enough to distinguish it from Maze. There is no point in excluding multi-cursal labyrinths, as historically there have been many (and many are mentioned in the article), and they continue to be built today. The maze at Arkville is a good example: multi-cursal, profoundly disorienting, but with its statues of Theseus and the Minotaur still unquestionably a "Labyrinth".
So, yes, let's tell the reader about the distinction often made between the terms, but let's not insist that there is a hard and fast rule about their use. There's too much evidence on the other side. And: please try not to pull the trigger so fast. Thanks.
Elphion (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Points (lots of them) taken. Although I see that Saward, in Magical Paths (2002), pp7–8, discusses the difference, agrees with the general division (although he says the distinction can become blurred), states that it is widely recognised, and adopts it for categorisation purposes in the captions and text of that book. I'm pretty sure that all the pictures of the unicursal type (at least the historic ones) in the book are described as labyrinths. In one caption (p27) he even uses the phrase "true labyrinths" to distinguish them from the maze design illustrated. This review of Doob points out that she is rather keen to expand the definition to include many things that other authorities would not recognise as either mazes or labyrinths. It also makes the interesting point that early illustrations of labyrinths, until the 16th or 17th century, are all unicursal, even when they accompany text describing a multicursal maze! Matthews, of course, was the first author to discuss the subject in great detail, and authors since then have realised that some greater distinction should be made between the unicursal and multicursal types. Naturally, any writer on the subject will have to acknowledge that the names are often been used interchangeably; the "turf mazes" of Britain are mostly labyrinths, by the modern "definition". But I still think that illustrating lots of mazes in the article will only confuse people further. Perhaps the gallery should have a title: Unicursal labyrinths? SiGarb | (Talk) 22:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right about Saward (in both books), who actually takes a refreshingly candid approach: he discusses the difference and then says which convention he will use in the books. I wish I had checked the books when looking for ammuniti . . . er, support for the labyrinth/maze distinction on my Talk:Labyrinth posts. Saward's website, which I did check, is more circumspect, talking about "the labyrinth in its many multicursal forms" -- making it hard to make the case that he draws a clear distinction!

One of the main points of Doob's book is that classical and medieval artists certainly would have understood the notion of a branching labyrinth; the unicursal depictions and the multicursal descriptions existed side by side; the one stood for the other. O'Donnell's review (the sort of snarky academic writing I really despise) doesn't disagree. (Although I seriously doubt that "The medieval authors and artists themselves were unconscious of the distinction themselves and could not have explained it if they were asked." Why do we treat the medieval mind as though it were something alien, inscrutable, and somehow incapable? The conflation or the two notions of labyrinth goes back to classical times anyway.)

I took a good look at Maze. I don't think you need to worry about having to merge the two articles; "Maze" is much more about the graph-theoretic problems of solving branching mazes, while Labyrinth is more strictly focused on the mythological phenomenon and the older designs that were drawn into its orbit. I think the intro of "Maze" needs to be seriously toned down; but also needs to mention the labyrinth as a vehicle for the myth of Theseus. And "Labyrinth" perhaps should say more about the phenomenon of unicursal representations of an obviously multicursal concept -- probably the most interesting aspect of labyrinths.

So on reflection, I think not including Schönbusch at "Labyrinth" is correct -- not because it is multicursal, but because it doesn't illustrate the mythological connection. (And in any case it's already displayed at "Maze".) The gallery shouldn't be limited to unicursal labyrinths, though. In particular, I'd like to get an image of the Arkville Labyrinth in there.

Elphion (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Perhaps the gallery could be subdivided into unicursal and multicursal examples. I think there were also a few unicursal turf mazes where the normal classical labyrinth pattern has been slightly altered to become multicursal – probably caused by recutting an overgrown site without having a pattern to work from. SiGarb | (Talk) 18:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Second Flag of Bhutan[edit]

I've uploaded the correct version version to commons. Thanks for letting me know about this. Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

Thank you for your interest in my additions, and I agree that she of course does not represent the totality of views within the Druidic movement, although she is one of the most prominent Druids in the UK (I do not know about the US). As further sources become available to me from other Druids I will of course endeavour to show their point of views as well. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC))

The thing is, I am best acquainted with the British style of Druidry as purported by Orr, Carr-Gomm, Nichols etc... I know far less of, for instance, American Druidry as is purported by Bonewits. What viewpoints would you suggest that I research and incorporate? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC))
Thank you!!! I'll start implementing some of your suggestions! (Midnightblueowl (talk) 01:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC))

Mediation at Minotaur[edit]

Hi! A user has filed a request for mediation in the dispute you are having with User:Notpietru about the wording used in the article Minotaur. I'm going to take a look at this case and try to help you come to an agreement that meets Wikipedia policies. The first step is making sure that everyone is on the same page. Please indicate that you are willing to participate by leaving a comment at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-12-20/Minotaur. Once I am in touch with both of you, I'll start a discussion to try to find common points of agreement between you, and we'll all work from there to agreement on the disputed wording. Thanks! — ækTalk 10:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

IPA[edit]

  • I have exactly the same problem as you had, showing IPA [1]. But, I'm using Firefox 3.6 in Windows 7 :( Please, tell me how did you fix the problem? May I copy your monobook.CSS page? I can't, i get a message telling me that this page isn't authorized. If you fixed the problem by other means, please let me know. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Boy, this is a blast from the past. I don't honestly remember for sure how it got fixed. But it's fairly clear that it's a font problem, not really a CSS issue. I did play around a bit with the monobook CSS in conjunction with another problem, but ended up yanking that and now use just the vanilla monobook default.

The key, I think, is making a font with full IPA support (like Gentium) the default font in your browser. That way, no matter what font is called for by the active stylesheet, your default font can supply the requisite character if necessary. At any rate, I haven't noticed any problems since making Gentium my default font. (See Wikipedia:IPA#Rendering issues for some font suggestions.)

Hope that helps, and good luck! -- Elphion (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Thanks so much for your help. You know what, the problem just disappeared after deleting Bitstream Cyberbit font from my computer. Oh... I had my relief :) --Mahmudmasri (talk) 04:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

From the Newbie, in re: Balrog[edit]

Hey. Sorry. Not sure if I'm doing this correctly or according to etiquette or what not. Anyway -- I visited the page on In-universe description. I see now what I did wrong. Thanks for informing me. --Cevkiv (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Award[edit]

Thanks[edit]

Barnstar of Diligence.png The Barnstar of Diligence
Awarding for unfailing support in the Middle-earth wiki project Carl Sixsmith (talk) 08:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Zs[edit]

I hate Z's but thanks for the heads up :-) Carl Sixsmith (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Council of Elrond[edit]

Hi! Okay, so I'm also noticing on several pages that they sometimes try to link back to the Council of Elrond, but there appears to be no page for the Council of Elrond so those links simply go back to the Fellowship of the Ring novel page, and in that page there is no specific section for the Council of Elrond, the events at the council are briefly described but it's not even referred to as a council. So. Should I remove any links to "Council of Elrond"? Thanks in advance for the advice! Evening Scribe (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a clear-cut call, I'm afraid. One could expend the effort to delete all the links, but (a) there are a lot of them, (b) as long as the redirect page for Council of Elrond is still there, links to it will continue to be added, and (c) it's just slightly discourteous to the user to remove links to information. In this case, I think the best approach is to leave the redirect page in place, but to redirect it more specifically to The Fellowship of the Ring#Book II: The Fellowship of the Ring, and to edit that section slightly so the phrase "Council of Elrond" does appear, maybe even in bold. -- Elphion (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh goodness, you're quite right. I didn't even NOTICE the redirect page, I thought it was direct linkage. It's a pretty problem. That paragraph is quite REALLY well written, and I'd hate to break it up, personally. Evening Scribe (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I've made a small change to the target paragraph and sent the redirect directly to that section. -- Elphion (talk) 06:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
That looks great! I'm sorry if I made you do the heavy lifting; I was too intimidated and failed to be bold. ;) I'm just glad my edits seem to be HELPING and not hurting the project. :) Evening Scribe (talk) 09:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The lifting wasn't very heavy! And opportunities to eradicate gratuitous passive voice always give me strength ... :-)   -- Elphion (talk) 09:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes! I've been noticing, enviously, your edits now and how wonderful you are with turn of phrase! Are you a writer/editor offline as well? Evening Scribe (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I write (and edit) a lot, yes. I wouldn't call myself a writer yet. -- Elphion (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Assistance.[edit]

Hi, if you get 5 minutes can you have a look at the Arwen and Galadriel article, I'm disputing various categories and titles they've been given, and could do with someone I trust on middle-earth related articles to either set me straight or back me up. Cheers Carl Sixsmith (talk) 07:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The avalanche begins! -- Elphion (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Cheers mate, as ever I stand indebted to your intricate knowledge in all things Tolkien :-D Carl Sixsmith (talk) 07:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

LOTR: "Biography" vs. "Fictional Biography"?[edit]

Hi! Okay, so new question: I was studying the Wikipedia style manual section about "in Universe" style and it listed categories such as "Biography" or "History" in articles about FICTIONAL people/places as too "Universe." On the various fictional LOTR biographies I've seen "Biography," "History," and "Fictional History" and mostly "History" or "Fictional History" for places, etc. All of these section headers be standardized to "Fictional Biography" and "Fictional History"? Should I just go ahead and do it, or is there a Middle Earth Portal page I need to ask this question and bring it to a vote? Are page vandals annoying? What's the Meaning of Life? Oops... Evening Scribe (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the easy question here is "What's the Meaning of Life?" ...
The Tolkien project (like most projects covering large fictional territory, like the Narnia series) tends to take some guidelines with a grain of salt. Yes, ideally we should be discussing these as soulless English dissertations (POV showing through :-), but for the most part that's not what authors or users are interested in. Peppering a straight-forward synopsis or character biography with "fictional" and the like is fussy and pointless: it's obviously fictional and saying "fictional" doesn't make the article any less in-universe -- the discussion itself would have to be changed. So by and large we don't bother with the pepper pot, unless we're trying to promote an article to featured status. It's something to do, but low on the priority list. Accuracy, references, and NPOV are much higher. Also, be careful editing existing headings, since they may be in use as link anchors. (Check "what links here?") -- Elphion (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

middle-earth places[edit]

Discussion going on here re: Arnor and all those images and stuff. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Labyrinth[edit]

I added some comments for the "lady of the labyrinth",to show that there is a continuity of her cult in classical Greece.In the Arcadian cults the godess of mysteries was Despoina,or Despoine (miss).In the Eleusinian mysteries,a similar title is given to Persephone.It must be noticed that the priests at Delphi were called Labryades (men of the double ax).94.65.254.167 (talk) 07:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Help: Moria[edit]

Hello, something is bugging me about Moria, and you might be able to help.

The inscription on the doors reads 'Ennyn Durin aran Moria. Pedo mellon a mino'. Now why would they refer to it as 'Moria' when it didn't get called that until later 3rd age? Am I wrong in assuming Moria was a later name or is it an authorial mistake? Carl Sixsmith (talk) 11:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It's probably Tolkien's error. He says (App F, I think?) that "Moria" was a late Sindarin coinage, "in the later days when it fell into evil" (approximate quote from memory) -- and we assume that he's talking about the appearance of the Balrog ca TA 1980, on which reading the name could hardly have been used on the doors in Moria's early days of glory. But there's enough vagueness in the history of the word that the apparent inconsistency could have been patched up with more invention. I saw once a really silly fannish solution: that the inscription itself magically morphed over time when the new name came into vogue. My bet is that Tolkien would have found a way to endow the name with enough age that it could appear on the original doors. -- Elphion (talk) 12:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Arango, may be[edit]

[2] ? José Fontaine (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yes, that's better. Last time I checked, the cheapest copy was ~$60. -- Elphion (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Flag of Bhutan[edit]

Hi im from WikiProject Bhutan and i was looking to see if there are still any active people working with the Flag of Bhutan article. I checked the talk page and you seemed like you where actively participating in the article. Spongie555 (talk) 04:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Still interested, but there's a dearth of source material to work from. Not sure how much more can be said definitively without additional clarification about the early versions of the flag. -- Elphion (talk) 14:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I think that Nvvchar and Dr. Blofeld could help you alittle on the article. They work alot with Bhutan related articles and have gotten a couple to GA. They can probably find sources for you. Spongie555 (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Flag of Bhutan[edit]

Can you perform a copy edit to this article? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I did not see the above topics. Anyways, I was asked by User:Spongie555 to help with his article when it comes to the content. Flags are my specialty and if you count my userpage, I have 6 FA's and 3 GA's about flags. I can lend a hand, but I have to admit the first glances at the article, there was a lot of things I have to change. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I've been watching your progress, and what you have looks OK. I have little to add. Orange Tuesday and I went through long discussions of earlier versions of the flag and concluded that absent more documentation almost nothing authoritative could be illustrated for the flag between 1949 and 1970; and I've seen no further documentation for that period. Elphion (talk) 20:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
It just happens I was at a 2009 conference about flags in Yokohama, Japan, where a paper on the Bhutan flag was given. I will see what I can pull from that paper but a lot of it already comes from the CBS paper. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Caldwell[edit]

Hi there. I noted you are adding the Caldwell stars to dab pages. I'm going to fix the ones already done, but just for future reference I wanted to point out that according to MOS:DAB there should only be one blue link per line. Best regards, and happy editing. --Muhandes (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, on both counts. -- Elphion (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

UTF-8[edit]

Both FF and FE were fairly specifically excluded from UTF8, so the byte sequences FF+FE and FE+FF could never appear in any UTF8 file (even one with misplaced start and continuation bytes). AnonMoos (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right that I could have phrased it a little bit better, though... AnonMoos (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if hypothetical sequences longer than six bytes are mentioned, then it should also be mentioned why they were excluded from the original design of UTF-8 -- since they would involve FE and FF bytes which might be dangerous if sequences became disarranged. You might think this is a remote contingency, but the designers of UTF-8 thought it was important enough to arrange UTF-8 so that 2 of the 4 bytes which should never occur in texts according to the original UTF-8 specification (C0, C1, FE, FF) were FE and FF...

Furthermore, speculations about sequences longer than eight bytes must removed from that section, since they would violate the design principle that one must be able to know exactly how many bytes are in a sequence based on the value of the start byte alone... AnonMoos (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I think these are both spurious issues. First, Thompson was originally concerned only with the 31-bit space, so naturally didn't worry about extensions beyond it. FE and FF not appearing was not the reason he stopped there. That they don't appear in Thompson's scheme allowed the standards committee to note that FE and FF don't occur in their restriction of it -- but is there any evidence whatsoever that they would not have adopted Thompson's scheme if they did occur? They didn't "design" UTF-8 so that FE and FF wouldn't occur. I've never seen that random BOMs in the text cause problems: the decoders throw in the "illegal character" code and move on. And no well-designed decoder I've ever seen is fooled for long by a spurious BOM/Anti-BOM at the beginning of text -- heuristic tests are invariably applied, and are even recommended by the standards. You'd be nuts not to, what with rampant coding stupidity and transmission problems.
Second, whether the extension scheme breaks Thompson's principle that the number of bytes is coded in the first byte depends entirely on how you phrase it. The extension scheme still follows Thompson's lead and marks all continuation bytes with "10", and naturally an extension beyond 8 bytes will have to use more than one byte to encode the byte count. But it still encodes the number of bytes at the beginning of the sequence, in a manner that is easy to decode -- and that's the real thrust of Thompson's innovation: self-documenting layout.
-- Elphion (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
PS -- I'd prefer that this discussion move to talk: UTF-8, but since you raised the two issues privately above, I've answered here too. -- Elphion (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
By the way, my comment of "15:16, 8 December 2010" above was in reply to your edit of "20:55, 7 December 2010" on article UTF-8 itself, and not to anything else in any location. AnonMoos (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The Chronicles of Narnia and Catholics[edit]

Must learn to read. I kept reading that it was Lewis. My mistake. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I realized that's what was going on -- but only *after* I'd saved the edit. Otherwise I would have said something in the edit summary. -- Elphion (talk) 05:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Bhutan[edit]

Hi you probably saw the Flag of Bhutan article was being reviewed for GA. Zscout asked me to change the citation templates but I don't know how too. Do you know how to? It would be appreciated. Spongie555 (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Most of the refs are already using versions of template:cite, so it's not clear what Zscout is after. I did cast the remaining references into template:cite, and made a few other adjustments. -- Elphion (talk) 00:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
According to the GA review it says change the inline web links to web citation templates. i think he ment that. Spongie555 (talk) 05:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's template:cite web. The web citations are now all template:cite web, even where it's not entirely convenient or appropriate (e.g., in the notes to the exhibition photo). -- Elphion (talk) 08:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
BoNM - Bhutan Hires.png The Bhutan Barnstar of National Merit
Thank you for helping the Flag of Bhutan article get to GA status, hope to see you help with more Bhutanese articles in the future Spongie555 (talk) 23:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
this WikiAward was given to Elphion by Spongie555 (talk) on 23:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Happy to help out -- and thanks for the feedback! -- Elphion (talk) 12:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Maybe you would interested in getting the National Anthem and the Emblem of Bhutan to GA so we can have a Good Topic of the national symbols of Bhutan. Spongie555 (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Article National symbols of Bhutan could use some help before it could be nominated to GA. It's in good shape just needs some help. Spongie555 (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Disagreement[edit]

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I'm sorry about the contentious nature of our disagreement on Talk:Saruman. I hope we can get past this and work together in the future. 74.109.214.27 (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Since you (very handsomely) struck out your remarks on Carl's page, I won't answer them -- except for this point: it was precisely because you pleaded inexperience that I thought it important to point out why your remarks constituted "original research", a concept most new editors (and a lot of experienced ones) don't quite get. As original research, the conclusion would not be appropriate for the article, and the discussion even arguably not appropriate for the talk page. (See WP:TALK: the talk pages are not intended for blue-sky discussions -- though it's a temptation all of us succumb to from time to time.) It was meant solely for your information, never as a rebuke. There are plenty of snarky editors on WP, but I try not to be one of them. -- Elphion (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and: it's traditional to add a welcome comment to a new editor's talk page (though frequently we don't bother until the editor gets a user id). It's a bit late to add something like that to your page, but consider yourself welcomed -- if sort of baptized by fire! -- Elphion (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I had a notion that it would fall under WP:OR, and I had read a lot of the policies before I began writing at all. But, I wasn't sure to what extent OR was permitted or not permitted on a talk page for the purpose of exploring what can be said definitively about a particular subject. As for baptism by fire, I'd say it's fine. As to why I don't have a user id yet, well, probably laziness. 74.109.214.27 (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Rings of Power[edit]

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you.

I viewed the edits you made to Rings of Power as not Minor edits. If you disagree please explain why and place a {{tb|Elphion}} tag on my talk page. I kept your edits because they looked good.Etineskid (talk) 23:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The rewrite I did not mark minor. The others truly are minor. Which do you think are not? -- Elphion (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I looked at the edits you did shown on the right side of the Diff page. They seem to be quite a few edits. You changed "destroy" to "forestall him by destroying" you added "until the end of the book". Your edit adding [[ and ]] to "Rivendell" would of been fine and where you added a comma is fine but the others are pretty major. Again let me know when you reply.Etineskid (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
They still look minor to me. The bit about not visible until the end perhaps less so than the others, but still hardly worth bothering about. What sense of the article have I changed? As the guideline says, there is gray area, and I'm probably somewhat over the line, though I think not by much. I do appreciate your feedback, and I'll think a bit longer before clicking the "m". -- Elphion (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

LZ77 and Deflate[edit]

Thanks for the correction on the LZW page! Do you think we should un-delete the text I deleted, claiming that LZW achieved the best compression ratios at the time? Because it's the Deflate (Huffman∘LZ77) algorithm that I was comparing. But sure enough, the original Ziv and Lempel paper describes an approach using fixed-width codewords in its output, and all of its compression claims are based on that. Does that approach measure up to LZW, in compression if not in speed?

Also, do you think it's worthwhile mentioning at that point that Deflate is Huff∘LZ77? I think it's interesting and somewhat ironic that LZW was displaced by, more or less, its own progenitor — once computers were fast enough.

Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 03:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

LZW was invented as an acceleration of LZ78 (via use of hashing to speed up the dictionary searches in the encoding process). This is generally faster than LZ77, especially when the latter is combined with Huffman coding as in DEFLATE (and therefore in PNG). Use of Huffman can achieve better compression ratios than LZW/LZ78, but it is also almost always slower to encode than LZW. (The difference is particularly noticeable when generating web images on the fly -- generating GIFs is always faster, by enough to make PNGs unusable for such an application on a high-volume site.) So there's a trade-off: if you want higher compression ratios, use DEFLATE; if speed is paramount, use LZW.
But DEFLATE gained traction primarily because of the copyright problems with LZ78/LZW -- first (and very noisily) in PKZIP, then in PDF and PNG -- not because of the better compression ratios. LZ78/LZW is still simpler and faster. These days, as the volume of material shipped around on the web has grown so much, compression ratios have become more important, but it was the copyright problems that started it all off. Why not apply Huffman coding to the output of LZW, after all?
The text you removed was probably technically incorrect anyway -- it's been known for some time that tuned Huffman coding yields the best possible compression, though at the time it probably was not available in an efficient commercial form. The reason LZW was so popular is that it is easy to implement, generally faster than most alternatives, and yields reasonable compression on a wide variety of data -- especially textual data, which was what it was primarily used for before GIF came along. All of that remains true today -- I think it's premature to write its obituary!
I don't know how the compression performance of LZ77 compares with LZ78. Welch's IEEE paper looks at comparison with other techniques, but it was all heuristic, not theoretical, and I don't remember whether he talked about compression in addition to speed. I wouldn't go into a lot of detail about DEFLATE in the LZW article, but saying that it's based on LZ77 might be of interest.
-- Elphion (talk) 07:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with your assertion about why LZW was originally popular, and that it remains popular.
For what it's worth, though, these days, there are a number of fast alternatives other than LZW, including LZO, LZF, FastLZ, and QuickLZ. Last time I benchmarked QuickLZ, I think it was considerably faster than compress, but maybe compress is not the most highly tuned LZW implementation?
Also, there are a number of practical algorithms now that fairly reliably get better ratios than Deflate, such as LZMA.
I don't think there were any copyright problems (algorithms aren't copyrightable) and I don't think the patent problems were with LZ78, only with LZW. You are certainly correct that the patent problems were a significant reason for people to switch from compress to gzip, but this was around 1995, so computers were already thirty times faster than when LZW was invented.
I haven't tried huffman-coding LZW output. Does the compression ratio improve if you do that? compress does do a clever huffman-like thing that is guaranteed to improve the compression ratio over straight LZW --- the first 256 tokens are represented in 9 bits each, the next 512 in 10 bits each, and so on.
I haven't heard of "tuned Huffman coding". Do you mean adaptive huffman coding? I'm pretty sure both Burrows-Wheeler and PAQ outperform adaptive huffman on real-world data, and of course there's no theoretical ideal to fall back on, since nothing can compress uniform random data, so we're left speculating on what kinds of redundancy might or might not exist in real-world data. You can prove that any compression algorithm is optimal if your model of the redundancy that exists in the data perfectly matches what kind of compression the algorithm performs, although that's more natural with things like huffman coding (really, arithmetic coding) or the BWT than with LZW. The Hutter Prize speculates that the problem is AI-complete.


Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 03:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Sorry, I meant "patent", not "copyright" -- a slip of the brain. LZ78 was indeed patented, as noted in the Patents section of the LZW article, which gives a link to the patent. -- Elphion (talk) 09:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Animated GIF listing[edit]

Thread moved from my talk page. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Fair warning: would you like to revise the animated GIF listing at Graphics Interchange Format before I take a crack at it? -- Elphion (talk) 22:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I created the animated GIF listing. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I know. That's why I'm letting you know I intend to edit it, in case you'd like to make any changes first. -- Elphion (talk) 01:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The Chronicles of Narnia[edit]

Hi - noticed that you've dropped in a few edits just now. No problems with them, but would you mind holding off on any more until the Copy Edit is completed? There's a tag at the top of the page. Thanks! -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

My edits were in areas that are not copy (the info box) or where the editor had asked for clarification. -- Elphion (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough, but still risked an edit conflict, no? given that those edits were in a non-section -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 00:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely, for the reasons mentioned -- but I'll desist for now. (I never actually read that tag before. Case of the boy who cried "wolf", I'm afraid -- tags have gotten to be like so much background noise on WP.) -- Elphion (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Goths[edit]

Thanks for explaining! I didn't know that. 98.82.193.135 (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it would have helped if the original revert had cited WP:OVERLINK. Unexplained reversions can be very frustrating. -- Elphion (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Quilt design as 46x46 uncompressed GIF.gif[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Quilt design as 46x46 uncompressed GIF.gif. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Well done with this image you made. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. First image I ever uploaded. I used your hex dump as a model to spiff up the image info. -- Elphion (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I adjusted "raster" to "raster line" because a raster is defined as the full set of image lines. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's OK and clearer; though, honestly, in actual usage I've never heard "raster" used for anything other than a single raster line.
File:240x340x128-color uncompressed.gif
The image looks ok on this page


I tried to make a larger uncompressed gif 240x240x128-color. The file is 58,933 bytes.
I wonder whether we have missed something because it displays differently in these programs:

  • The image looks ok on this page.
  • PAINT in Windows ME: Shows only the upper 204 lines
  • PAINT in Vista: Cannot read file
  • My computer - preview in Windows ME: Shows whole image
  • Computer - preview in Vista: Shows whole image
  • Extra large icon in Vista: Shows about 240 lines
  • The GIMP: Reports "Ran off the end of my bits" and cannot open the file
  • IRFAN - Shows whole image and can resave correctly as a compressed gif.

I hope you don't mind me asking you to look at this. I could send you the file. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It's just a glitch in the sub-block chain. The byte count for the last sub-block before the 2-byte STOP sub-block should be 0x64, not 0x65. (0x65 incorrectly includes the length byte in the count.) Cheers, -- Elphion (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. That correction fixed my file to pass all the tests except The GIMP which must have a bug including an updated version 4.6.11 of The GIMP. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC) I corrected my post by striking. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Isn't "running off the end of the bits" how a buffer overflow attack would work?83.216.149.7 (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I think what Gimp meant is that it reached the end of the file ("the end of the bits") without finding the terminating sub-block for the image data -- so it knew something wasn't right. (My guess is that Gimp creates a table of offsets into the image data sub-blocks before processing the data.) The alternative is to stop processing data once the requisite number of pixels are filled -- which is how the other programs managed to cobble together something to display. Certainly there's potential for overruning a buffer (say, Gimp's sub-block table) if you blindly continue to generate the table without checking to be sure that you still have space in the table, but I doubt that's what's going on here. Gimp just found the file structure corrupt. -- Elphion (talk) 22:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Middle-earth consensus[edit]

Hi there Elphion, looking at the guidelines for the middle-earth project, specifically the discussion about using past tense in the articles. Looking at the debate it only consists of four users, this seems a bit small to create a consensus that overrides community standards. Do you know any other discussions that went on? Cheers Carl Sixsmith (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I always assumed that was settled long before my time. -- Elphion (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

CS Lewis[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing as you did to CS Lewis. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. 143.239.7.3 (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no dog in this fight, but the referenced edit by Elphion was definately not vandalism, and in fact followed the discussion on the talk page (no consensus.) It would appear to be a POV warpath on the part of 143.239.7.3. 78.26 (talk) 20:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Giant impact hypothesis[edit]

The figure that was removed was from a paper by Belbruno and Gott (2005) and assumed that the Moon-forming impactor came from the L4 or L5 Lagrangian point. However, no one has ever demonstrated that a planetary embryo could grow at these regions of space. The N-body simulations of others (i.e. Chambers 2001 and others) have never discussed such a possibility. Hence, the relevance of this paper to the question of lunar origin is dubious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thekaveman (talkcontribs) 03:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I've started a section at Talk:Giant impact hypothesis and copied your response above to that page. See my response there. -- Elphion (talk) 08:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for Uncompressed GIF[edit]

Just wanted to say thanks for making that. I'd never considered the possibility of making an uncompressed GIF but the technique makes absolute sense. I've added it to my image test suite and plan to write some code to save uncompressed GIF as a speed optimisation. 83.216.149.7 (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You're certainly welcome! I hasten to add that the technique was not my idea; it surfaced about the time the patent issue for the compression algorithm blew up. Also, when you say "speed optimisation", be aware that the file transfer speed (obviously proportional to space) will probably not be optimized: uncompressed GIFs often run up to ten to twenty times the size of regular GIFs, depending on the characteristics of the data. -- Elphion (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
It's supposed to be a saving of compression/file time. It's not so relevant to GIF, more of a PNG or JPEG thing. The time to write the bigger file might remove any gain from not compressing. I suppose the uncompressed GIF would be simpler to load.83.216.149.7 (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

List of Characters in The Chronicles of Narnia[edit]

Nice cleanup on the List of Characters in The Chronicles of Narnia. And happy New Year. LloydSommerer (talk) 02:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! And to you too! -- Elphion (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Ushuaia[edit]

Hi Elphion, Where did you get this:

The first reference represents false reporting by Clarín to try to derail the real negotiations that had taken place (attempting to set up new arrangements for the peaceful administration of the border between Argentina and Chile, among other things by arranging for peaceful military transport of Chilean forces across Tierra del Fuego).
  • Do you mean Clarin tries to derail the CH-AR peace treaty? Do you have sources for?
  • Do you mean Chilean troops want to march through Argentine territories? Do you have sources for?

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Response at talk:Ushuaia. -- Elphion (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Minotaur and the sacrificial victims[edit]

Hello Elphion. In your recent edit of the article Minotaur, you removed the section on the Athenian youths and maidens that were to be given up to Minotaur, stating in your edit summary that there was "far more detail that appropriate". I'm the one who added this section, and now that you saw something wrong with it I would like to know:

  • Did I violate any explicit rule by adding it, i. e. is there any objective criteria of how much info on one page is "far more than appropriate"? (I realize that I may be missing something about rules concerning the arrangement of content).
  • Where and in what form should I have added this info if I wanted to do it right?

I'm not at all offended by you deleting my work, I do realize that I may have made some mistake, and I'm hoping for a constructive answer from you.

Thanks in advance, Phlyaristis (talk) 11:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. The answer in a nutshell is WP:IINFO: WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There's room for discussion, so I've started a thread at talk:Minotaur. -- Elphion (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Congo Free State[edit]

Hello,

Further to our exchange on the King Leopold's Ghost talk page, I just wondered whether you might be interested in helping me with the article for The King Incorporated? If you could, I'd much appreciate it & at the moment it is very much WIP.

All best,

--Brigade Piron (talk) 20:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

In principle, yes; but I'm away from my books until September, so may not be able to contribute a lot. I have read Ascherson, but it was a long time ago, and memory fades over time, alas. -- Elphion (talk) 20:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. If you could at some point give it a look over, it'd be much apreciated! --Brigade Piron (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll keep an eye on it. -- Elphion (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hobbit Article Grammar[edit]

Collective or group nouns only take a plural verb agreement if the noun is being used to refer to the constituent parts of the group. For example: "The Cabinet fought amongst themselves." In this case the "Cabinet" refers to the constituent members of the group and not the group as a whole, and in terms of the verb agreement, answers to the pronoun "they" (... fought amongst themselves.) However, when the group noun is used to refer to the group as an single entity, for example "The Cabinet makes a key decision" - then the noun takes a singular agreement since it answers to the pronoun "it" (... makes a key decision). There's no distinction or difference made between UK and US, or international variants of English on this point. There are numerous grammar guides on the internet which explain this, and the paradigm of 'English' Grammar, Fowler's states the same. isfutile:P (talk) 03:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I've copied your comment to talk:The Hobbit, since this clearly warrants discussion. See my response there. -- Elphion (talk) 07:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Witch-king of Angmar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bree (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 01:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Leap Year Apologies[edit]

It was indeed a foolish mistake on my part, t'was late and I transposed the years in my head in how they were affected by the rule (which is odd as I see looking at calculations I've made previously I darn well knew that too), would you mind if I deleted the section on the talk page where you responded, as it seems fairly moot now. Especially as the fact has been referenced (which it was not previously).Number36 (talk) 03:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

(Response on your talk page) -- Elphion (talk) 04:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your response, I wasn't too worried about it, not trying to hide the mistake (I'm not sure who would be interested) merely thought the section is a bit irrelevant now it's been resolved and I was the only one who had incorrectly raised the issue, seemed a bit silly to leave a section with an incorrect assertion as the title that I no longer asserted. Also apologise if my tone seemed unfriendly, I certainly didn't intend that.Number36 (talk) 06:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The Chronicles of Narnia[edit]

Hi, I see that you have revised The Chronicles of Narnia many times and extensively --and, I conclude at a glance, the seven books articles much less so. Last hour I asked several questions in new section Talk:The Chronicles of Narnia#Publication history. All of them have been generated by my experience revising the seven book articles this weekend, by reference to bibliographic sources and no reference to the series article, which I haven't read except as necessary to Talk. Frankly, I have Talked at the series article because the WikiProject appears to be inactive. I expect to edit the book articles again --at least read all of their lead sections together and improve some in the light of others-- before I work on the series article, if at all.

For what it's worth, I arrived via the illustrator Pauline Baynes and the book award Carnegie Medal. --P64 (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Gollum[edit]

Would you care to join the discussion about which version of English to use at Talk:Gollum. Cheers GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 19:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

See my note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards. -- Elphion (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The Space Barnstar[edit]

Space-Barnstar-1j.png The Space Barnstar
For your contributions to articles about space, especially nebula. Fotaun (talk) 16:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I am amazed at how much astronomical material is already in WP; appalled at how much is left to do. -- Elphion (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree! Glad I could stop by, and of course, have a great 2013. Fotaun (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings - Flood[edit]

Hello, I have reverted the edit on The Lord of the Rings due to what I believe was an error. In The Fellowship of the Ring, it is written "'Elrond commanded it,' answered Gandalf.", followed by "If I may say so, I added a few touches of my own: you may not have noticed, but some of the waves took the form of great white horses with shining white riders; and there were many rolling and grinding boulders. For a moment I was afraid that we had let loose too fierce a wrath, and the flood would get out of hand and wash you all away." (emphasis mine). Also, there are texts published specifically saying the flood was created from the combined power of Narya and Vilya, which I can dig up if need be. --Wirbelwind(ヴィルヴェルヴィント) 08:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The book gives the strong impression that the main power behind the flood was Elrond. Anything further should be referenced. (And let's remember that this is a synopsis, not a blow by blow account.) -- Elphion (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Jive talk[edit]

Can't believe I wrote that. It's way past my bedtime. I blame Mrs. Cleaver for that. She's the one who taught me Jive. [[3]]. Glad you like my user name. Thanks, and good luck! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Lead from List of Leap Years[edit]

(Saved here against the article being deleted.)

In the Gregorian calendar, the current standard calendar in most of the world, most years that are divisible by 4 are leap years. In a leap year, the month of February has 29 days instead of 28. This compensates for the fact that a solar year is about 6 hours longer than 365 days, by adding an extra day (a leap day) to the calendar every four years.

However, the duration of a solar year is approximately 365.2422 days, slightly less than 365.25 days. The old rule of adding a leap day every fourth year overcompensates. The Gregorian calendar therefore adjusts the leap year rule by omitting three leap days every 400 years, turning three years that would be leap years in the older Julian calendar into common years. This leads to an average calendar year of 365.2425 days, which is very close to the length of the solar year:

(400 years × 365 common days) + (100 − 3) leap days = 146097 days in 400 Gregorian years.
146097 days ÷ 400 years = 365.2425 days per Gregorian year

Each 400-year period has four century years (years divisible by 100), but only one of those is divisible by 400. The century years not divisible by 400 are identified by the Gregorian calendar as the three years in which the usual leap day is omitted.[1][2] For example, 1600 and 2000 were leap years, but 1700, 1800 and 1900 were not. Future century years 2100, 2200, 2300, 2500, 2600, 2700, 2900, and 3000 will not be leap years, but 2400 and 2800 will be.

By this rule, the average number of days per year is 365 + 1/4 − 1/100 + 1/400 = 365.2425.

References

  1. ^ "Leap years and leap seconds". Astronomy and Time. Royal Museums Greenwich: Royal Observatory. Retrieved February 26, 2013. 
  2. ^ "Leap Years". Astronomical Applications. U. S. Naval Observatory. Retrieved February 26, 2013. 

Discussion of List of leap years[edit]

Hi, Elphion. Since you feel that merging some of that text into leap year would improve that article, regardless of whether List of leap years is deleted, it's probably worth doing that now. I don't think that would prejudice the deletion discussion, since Leap year ought to have the best description possible and doesn't need to have worse text than it might, just because some other article exists and is up for deletion. Dricherby (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Ushuaia Climate[edit]

In the climate section, it states that Ushuaia receives 146 days with light rain or snow per year and I have noticed that you reverted one of my edits. Would it be better to indicate that it receives 146 days with precipitation instead because precipitation includes rainfall, snowfall and mixed precipitation?

That would be a better description. I reverted the edit principally because it characterized the climate as "almost tundra (ET)", which is not accurate. -- Elphion (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

TheMatulaak - Thanks for Arnor Edits![edit]

Hi Elphion, Arnor was one of my first page edits on wikipedia and I was looking to bring it more up to date with the format of the Gondor page with regards to regions and such. Thanks for cleaning up some of the edits I made though, you learn something everyday. Could you check out the adaptations section I made and see if it is in-line with what it should be? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMatulaak (talkcontribs) 00:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

(response at user talk:TheMatulaak) -- Elphion (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Karakul (Tajikistan), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Pamiri and Orkhon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

List of druids and neo-druids[edit]

Could you take a look at this article and the talk page? Some of the articles linked may have problems also, I already spotted one. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have a lot to contribute. I'll observe that the list is heavy on Brits, but I don't know "notable" American Druids beyond Bonewits (who was alas too notable and not really representative of American Druidism). -- Elphion (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Uncompressed GIFs[edit]

Hey,

This is kind of random and oldschool, but do you have any more details about how you created the uncompressed GIF located here here? I'm trying to create an uncompressed GIF wrapper in JavaScript after finding one I did for transparent BMPs was only compatible with Chrome. Unfortunately I cannot for the life of me get it to work, and I'm not seeing any errors, it just fails silently but the data generated looks roughly correct. I'm using 33 bytes per chunk for a 256x256 image (clear + 32 bytes of image data) if that helps.

Also, do you recall if generating 8-bit width uncompressed GIFs is significantly more non-trivial than 7-bit? I was unclear about the clear codes, etc in that case as they become 9-bit. (I did otherwise use 7-bit and tried to match what you did as closely as possible, because it is the only working example I'm aware of)

Thanks!

Your original image works when encoded as base64, btw: (hopefully this doesn't break anything, remove if so)

var gif64 = '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'

document.getElementById('image00').src = 'data:image/gif;base64,' + gif64;

Разрывные (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It's hard to debug without the code in hand, of course! I would look at the following:
(1) 8-bit data must be encoded as 9-bit codes. I.e., not only is the clear code 9 bits, the data "bytes" must be 9-bit codes as well.
(2) The significant advantage of 7-bit data (8-bit codes) is that they fit naturally into bytes. 8-bit data (9-bit codes) must be packed into bytes using LSB packing. Each 9-bit code will span a byte boundary somewhere.
(3) But the data stream of packed bytes must be broken on byte boundaries into sub-blocks (what I think you call chunks). This includes the clear codes. Thus, the (clear + data) groups likely will not fall on sub-block boundaries. You cannot pad sub-blocks with zero bits; you must form the continuous stream of clear and data bits (9 bits per code), pack those bits into bytes, and then divide the bytes into sub-blocks.
(4) You mention clear code + 32 data bytes. If you mean clear code + 32 data codes, that's (1 code + 32 codes)*9 bits/code = 33*9 bits = 297 bits = 37 bytes + 1 bit. To make the codes come out on a byte boundary try (clear code + 31 data codes): 32*9 = 288 bits = 36 bytes + no extra bits.
Hope that helps! -- Elphion (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! It does. I did some extended debugging, and found my problem was I had negligently dropped the 0x02C image descriptor byte. Once I added that, it worked as expected (pointless prototype). Again, thanks for posting the working example and details as I do not think I would've resolved it otherwise.
Appreciate the info on the 9-bit encoding, as I would've been doing it wrong. Will give that a try next. You sir, are a hero of the GIF format. Разрывные (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

White Witch edit[edit]

Thanks for reverting my edit on the White Witch article regarding the redundant punctuation. I had forgotten that, in English, when a quotation ending in a question mark or exclamation point ends a sentence, no extra period is needed.
Best regards, Holothurion (talk) 10:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, hard to keep the rules straight, what with differences between languages, and even between different varieties of English. -- Elphion (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mr. Tumnus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Imaginationland. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

(For the record, the link was directed to the DAB page deliberately.) -- Elphion (talk) 06:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Image Discussion at WP:Me[edit]

There is a new discussion on at WP:me regarding use of film images in info boxes on Tolkien articles if you'd like to discuss it. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 20:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

January 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tom Bombadil may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • }}</ref> and carefully differentiated Goldberry's response from the Biblical "[[I Am that I Am]]").<ref name="let153">{{cite book |title=The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien |editor-last=Carpenter |

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Mail...[edit]

Elphion. I am wondering why you reverted my edit on the mail page. While technically true that all Western sources state that "Post" is derived from a Latin source, I think an encyclopedia should also state probable and logical alternative explanations, certainly if they are stated as such. Disregarding the fact that no sources state a Persian origin; we can not be oblivious to, also a fact, "Post" in Parsi means what I stated and that that was the way the worldwide postal system was set up. Or do you think that's a complete coincidence which can and should not be brought to the attention of Wikipedia readers? 6th Common Sense (talk) 11:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I reverted it because it seems on its face unlikely, given the dictionary etymologies; because it is completely unsourced; and because it is presented in terms that make it clear that it is merely the hunch of an editor. WP has a policy against including such material, see WP:OR and WP:VERIFY. To include it, you must locate and cite a reliable source (WP:RS).
Part of what's missing here is any indication of the time-frame of the appearance of the Persian system and the Persian word, as well as any indication that Europeans were aware of either when early postal systems were being developed. The concept is not exactly arcane, and given the early appearance of the word in Europe, it seems just as likely (from the evidence presented) that the idea arose independently, or even that the Persians borrowed the word from Europe. You need some real historical evidence to back this claim up.
-- Elphion (talk) 12:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I think I stated as such - that it is unsourced. Yet, to me the unlikeness of it merely being a coincidence that the literal meaning of the Parsi word "post" is exactly how the worldwide postal services have been organized over the centuries, convince me that that so-called coincidence should at least be mentioned in an encyclopedia which aims to distinguish itself. The parallels are so obvious that it is beyond "hunch", but still unsourced. I'll give you that, we'll have Wikipedia re-chew common opinion and I'll rest my case here.
6th Common Sense (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I see the claim of Persian origin has already been removed from Post office, for the same reason. And while there, I saw that you had removed Farley's name from his famous quote. He might have gotten it from Herodotus, but if so, you should provide a citation to the relevant passage in Herodotus -- and in any event, the association with Farley needs to be preserved because he's the one who made it famous. (Added:) The source from Herodotus could have been supplied by linking to United States Postal Service creed, where this is discussed. I have added such a link. That article makes clear that Herodotus, and therefore Europe, was aware of the Achaemenid system; but it says nothing about the etymology of "post". Can you supply a source that attests the age of the Persian word, or that it was known in Europe? -- Elphion (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
This I do not agree with. It is not because somebody made a quote more famous, that it should be him getting the credit for it. When people look up the James Farley building, perhaps wondering where that quote comes from, it does not suffice saying: the building's architect made it famous. That's circular reasoning. It's like saying that Shakespeare's "To be or not to be" is actually from Beast Wars: Transformers because that is the "modern" reference. I go a bit far with the analogy, but correct.
6th Common Sense (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Your analogy rather misses the mark. Farley was not the architect, he was the Postmaster General who adopted the phrase as the motto for the USPS. The quote is on the building not in memory of Herodotus, but to honor Farley. I have nothing against mentioning Herodotus (and I was surprised that you deleted the link that made the connection clearer), but Herodotus is not why the quote is there. As far as "post" is concerned, I'm open to the possibility of a Persian connection, but you need to find a source. Linguistic coincidences like that are common, and even have their own term (folk etymology). The resemblance of the Persian and developing European systems is not as great as you make it out to be ("post", e.g., does not imply a return response in European systems), and the conclusion you've drawn is by no means the only one possible. The point is, it needs to be backed up with expert sources. -- Elphion (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
All fees for post were, until 1986 when the UPU created "transit charges", paid in the sender's country. The destination country was left with the expensive and time-intensive distribution of mail free of charge. They'd only get paid when a return message was posted. In modern times, the inbalance between a rich country literally sending tons of mail towards third-worlds while only kilos returned, was unsustainable for the latter. Hence the 1986 implementation.
BTW. Maybe "my" pointing out of the analogy between the Persian word and its implementation is Lexicology more than folk etymology? Anyhows.
6th Common Sense (talk) 09:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Unitarianism[edit]

Good morning, I saw your revert. There is apparently broad consensus in Wikipedia that Unitarianism is part of Christianity. The article Unitarianism starts: "Unitarianism is a Christian theological movement named for the affirmation that God is one person, in direct contrast to Trinitarianism." Marcocapelle (talk) 05:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Certainly Christian at the time, but as the hatnote at Unitarianism points out, it's no longer explicitly so. Modern Unitarianism views the Edict of Torda as a defining moment in the movement, which pushed it eventually to transcend Christianity. Categorizing the article in Category:History of Christianity in Romania (or indeed Category:History of Christianity in Hungary, which I overlooked) is not wrong, but I think too limited, and misses the edict's continuing influence. What's really needed, I guess, is Category:Unitarianism. -- Elphion (talk) 12:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Unitarianism starts with a disambiguator, it says this article is about
historical Unitarianism as a Christian theology which includes a belief in God and his unitary nature
while on the other hand there is an article about
the UU Church which began in 1961, and which holds no specific creeds concerning Christianity, God, or God's unitary nature.
So it seems that up to 1961 the Unitarians regarded themselves as Christians. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

No, 1961 was when the Unitarians and Universalists merged. Both organizations had drifted away from doctrinal Christianity long before. -- Elphion (talk) 11:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Meanwhile I've read the article until the end. It seems like there's a whole lot of Christian Unitarian organizations still existing, according to the paragraph Modern Christian Unitarian organizations. While, apart from the UU Church in 1961, there isn't any year or era mentioned in which a farewell from Christianity would have taken place. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, many Unitarians call themselves Christian, but most of those (since the beginning of the Reformation, tapping into older heresies dating back to the 2nd century) don't believe that Christ is divine. Hence many Christian churches don't regard Unitarians as Christian. Indeed, in 16th-century Transylvania, Francis David jeopardized the religious tolerance granted to Unitarians by insisting too assiduously on the non-divinity of Christ. Since the early 19th century and the Transcendentalists like Ralph Waldo Emerson, both Unitarians and Universalists have turned away from formal dogma altogether; and while many Unitarians consider themselves Christian, there are (and have been) many who do not. ("Unitarians believe in at most one god" is the old witticism.) So characterizing "Unitarianism" as "Christian", then or now, is not entirely accurate. -- Elphion (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
OK so then it becomes a POV issue. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Leopold II Problem[edit]

No problem exists. If it is kept, just put it back. NegroLeagueHistorian (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Team Barnstar Hires.png The Teamwork Barnstar
Thanks for correcting my wrongly identified peaks! RO(talk) 15:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Just trying to be helpful ... -- Elphion (talk) 16:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Your edits were very helpful. So, do you know them all by heart, or are you just good at map reading; or is it a little of both? RO(talk) 17:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Pretty much all by heart, especially the Front Range and the Mummy Range -- I've been hiking there since I was a little tyke (climbed Longs Peak with my Dad at the age of 9). -- Elphion (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Wow. That's very cool. I love hiking in the Rockies, but I've never gotten enough nerve up to try anything that challenging/dangerous. I'm more of an endurance hiker. I conquered Barrier Canyon in July, and it was 106 degrees in Moab that day! Longs was recently named one of the world's 20 most dangerous hikes: ([4]), so that's pretty impressive for a 9-year-old! Have you returned to the top since? RO(talk) 18:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I've been to the summit 7 times, and had to turn back several more times due to weather (once being sleeted on at Homestretch, sheesh). The first time was the best though: clear and cloudless -- we could see Pike's Peak in the distance. The usual route up the Trough is not technical, but I'm not entirely surprised it's considered dangerous. The weather is always iffy, of course, and there are places where you have to be careful to avoid falling. It's a strenuous hike, even if not technical: we've shepherded college guys down who poop out at the top. Then too, the Trough itself has become noticeably slipperier over the years, as places get worn smooth due to all the traffic. And on a good day, there is lots of traffic! -- Elphion (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
How exciting! Which peaks would you recommend for newbies? I always wanted to climb a 14er, but I had better start with one much easier. Are any of the 14ers easy? RO(talk) 19:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Longs is the only 14er I've been up, since I focus mainly on RMNP. But check out 14ers.com and 5280 Magazine. -- Elphion (talk) 19:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
You know, I've been to RMNP several times, but I never realized Longs was just 181 feet shy of the tallest peak in the Rockies! And I didn't know most of the peak's names until a few days ago, so thanks for teaching me! RO(talk) 23:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Elphion. You have new messages at Walter Görlitz's talk page.
Message added 06:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Elphion. You have new messages at Walter Görlitz's talk page.
Message added 15:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of supernovae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aries. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Fixed -- Elphion (talk) 15:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Elphion. You have new messages at Lithopsian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

UTF-8 sequence length[edit]

I am quite confused by your edit "The number of high-order 1s in the leading byte of a multi-byte sequence indicates the number of bytes in the sequence, so that the number of bytes in the sequence can be determined from the lead byte alone.", which you made "to reduce redundancy". But this seems worse to me, because it's just saying the same thing twice instead of coming at it from two different angles. What I previously added was that there is a hard problem to be solved in the context of streams, but that could also be done by having an indication for trailing byte, e.g., 110xxxxx in the leading byte and 111xxxxx in the trailing byte, and still 10xxxxxx in-between. Is this about performance? Then it seems to me that there should be a reference to a reliable study, because it is not a priori clear that the additional cost of inspecting continuation bytes to know where a sequence ends would be significant if they have to be inspected for validity anyway, as this could be done together. Or maybe the designers stated it as a goal, in which case it could still be borne out by facts or not. Let's discuss this in a civil manner... RFST (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Using 10xxxxxx in the leading byte, zero or more 110xxxxx intermediary bytes, and 111xxxxx in the trailing byte, instead of my earlier suggestion, would be as bit-efficient as UTF-8 is now. It would be possible to take the maximum number of bytes (4), mask out all but the third bit of each possible continuation byte, and use a single instruction to find the leading 1 to know the length of the byte sequence, which seems fairly efficient. Is UTF-8 still noticeably more performant? Or is it just easier to implement with all information in the leading byte? All plausible, but do we know or are we guessing? Maybe it's better to just omit the second part of that sentence. RFST (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Speculation about what UTF-8 *might have done* to solve the synchronization problem is not really appropriate for that article. It suffices to say that the number of bytes in a sequence is signaled in the lead byte, so that a stream can be traversed by looking only at lead bytes. Yes, intermediate bytes should be inspected for *verifying* the stream, but one often traverses streams that have already been verified. I was tempted to delete the second clause in the sentence you quote (in addition to the further restatement that I did delete), but decided that since someone thought it necessary to point that out, I shouldn't be too hasty. Go ahead and strike it if you like. The further material you mention (other ways to synchronize streams) is out of place at UTF-8. UTF-8 makes no claim that this is the most efficient encoding possible, either for space or time. But it is a very straight-forward one, and easy to work with. -- Elphion (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I had no intention to add any speculation to the article itself, but both the original sentence and your replacement seem to imply performance reasons without backing that up. You write "I was tempted to delete [...] (in addition to [...])", but the first is just your own replacement of the second... I also considered that "someone thought it necessary to point that out", which is why I previously added "Also, " and "clarification needed" instead of removing it. But I'll now remove the second part of the sentence. — RFST (talk) 06:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I had no intention of implying performance gains, simply pointing out that it solves the synchronization problem. -- Elphion (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
My point exactly: it seemed like it might be about performance. BTW, it's not about synchronization here, it's about those times that you (also) can't synchronize on the right. — 109.131.255.227 (talk) 05:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

" 'Here,' said Elrond, ...'is Boromir, a man from the South.' "[edit]

Thanks for all your excellent work. I must admit however to being perplexed by the recent reversal of the addition of 'of Gondor' to the race-label in the article Boromir. The information is correct and concise. Is there a problem in indicating 'sub-race'? Also I think that Gondor is a key part of Boromir's identity, and needs to be mentioned somewhere in his information box. Regards Jungleboy63 (talk) 07:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC) Jungleboy63 (talk) 07:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I have been following your additions -- they are mostly very good. You should, however, avoid cramming lots of material into the infoboxes. They are not meant to summarize the article. Important background information should instead go into the lead. See my response at talk:Frodo Baggins. -- Elphion (talk) 14:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Life in Tashbaan[edit]

I don't want to get in an edit war over the The Horse and His Boy article but a couple of the changes that you reverted related to minor factual errors. Would you have any objection to my correcting those? Others were intended to be style improvements - admittedly a matter of personal taste. This was my favorite book as a child and I just couldn't resist the temptation to expand on Calormen politics. Buistr (talk) 04:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

What factual errors are you addressing? As for the rest, we have tried hard to keep the plot summaries under control, as MOS:PLOT suggests. As I said, these are supposed to be summaries -- they are not the place for extended description. The idea is that a person should recognize the book from previous reading, not substitute for the reading itself! -- Elphion (talk) 22:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Discussion moved to talk page of article in question. Buistr (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Elphion. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Leap year‎[edit]

I took the liberty of warning the IP for the edit you undid. The days of the week were incorrect, and this is the second time the IP has attempted to add this incorrect info. Meters (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Witch king of angmar[edit]

Hi I am sorry to be rude, but I just wanted your opinion in your changes to the witch king of angmar page. I am aware Tolkien himself did not use terms such as telepathy and telekinesis, yet by definition the powers are, and have been used to describe them before. I also did not understand why other powers were removed, such as the black breath, or his weapons. These are most definitely real terms used by Tolkien. I was thinking of re adding them, but without the telepathy and telekinesis, as you seem to know a lot about Tolkien yourself so I respect your opinions. Drdoom02 (talk) 09:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi -- I've answered on talk:Witch-king of Angmar. Basically, it's because your additions go into far more detail than appropriate for an encyclopedia and are not encyclopedic in tone. I appreciate that you are trying to flesh out the article's description of the character, but what you've got is the "RPG version" of the Witch-king, and not appropriate for a serious discussion of Tolkien's text. Some of the material would be appropriate for a "Characteristics" section, but see my remarks on the talk page. -- Elphion (talk) 13:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks at least I know for next time. I knew telekinesis was not necessarily Tolkien friendly and admit to that, however telepathy has been used to describe Tolkiens work before and I did not realise people disliked the term regarding his work so much, considering the detail on other pages but i see your point. I also did not realise the layout I had chosen was innapropriate, I was just trying to give depth to the specific capabilities. I will not make any more changes to the page now I know ( at least not pertaining to powers) and thankyou for your time. Drdoom02 (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I have to say though I did not copy any from fan sites I just generally talk like that. Drdoom02 (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe "copied" was unfair -- but I did look at some of your references, and the material and organization were quite similar. In general we look for somewhat more processing of the information; and in any event these are not the sources we would expect for a discussion of Tolkien's writing. The Manual of Style has tons of information and links to good advice on style -- there's so much there that it takes a while to absorb. See WP:PROSE in particular. (I'm adding the customary links for new editors to your talk page.) -- Elphion (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the tips and your time I really appreciate it Drdoom02 (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Lorax[edit]

Lorax quisquis ovum sediat numquam parentis avis essit, aunque pennae tenerit. μηδείς (talk) 22:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

For this. I totally misread it. (Not enough caffeine, perhaps.) RivertorchFIREWATER 20:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Elphion. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Mohács[edit]

Hi, thanks for your edits. However, please be careful to make sure you are not breaking images by altering file names, even if they have typos in them, as you did here. If you want to fix the typos, you will unfortunately need to re-upload the image via WP:UPIMAGE to avoid breaking the file names. Thank you. Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 18:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)