text:
User talk:Strebe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 * First, you need to move this discussion to the article’s talk page, not mine. I will copy and past all this there.

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

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

 * I don't know the subject matter enough to have an opinion, but it would probably be beneficial to everyone if you toned it back just a notch Strebe. Regardless of who is right on the merits of the discussion, the discussion appears to be taking place in good faith, and poking people with sharp sticks simply because you feel your perspective is the only correct one seldom produces consensus.  So please consider a less confrontational way to communicate.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 14:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

 * I will stick to the facts, but I do not agree that discussion is taking place in good faith. To this moment, the IP editor has not acknowledged a single contrary piece of evidence. He has deleted the authoritative reference and supplied none of his own, merely calling it “bad”. Whatever his agenda is, it is not Wikipedia’s. Strebe (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you understand that it is difficult to always guess the faith of the editor when you are very unfamiliar with the subject matter. It is difficult to see inside the mind of an editor.  I request only to make sure we aren't making a victim out of someone, IF they are in the wrong.  Any help you can provide that makes it more clear where the problem lies is helpful. Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 16:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

 * No, my agenda is in fact Wikipedia's (viz. an accurate entry), and once again you're not assuming good faith, in violation of policy. I'm a mathematician so you can understand, I hope, the perspective that I bring.  In mathematics a common sphere is 2-dimensional, period.  This is intuitively obvious by asking 'How many coordinates are necessary to specify a point on a sphere?'  And the answer is 'two'.  I understand that sometime 'sphere' is used colloquially, to describe, for example, a soccer ball.  This is a geometry we would call a 'ball', not a 'sphere'.  Moreover, while map projections in our daily life are typically from 2d curved space (like the surface of the Earth) to 2d flat space (like a road map), this need not be the case, and I believe that the article should reflect that.184.186.8.148 (talk) 02:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

 * Your definition of accurate is inaccurate and you are not the authority of what is accurate. Your claimed credentials are irrelevant. I provided a citation from the most authoritative expert in cartographic map projections in the 20th century. You completely ignored it and worse, you deleted it under your personal theory that it was “bad”. That’s not allowed. Do you not understand that your alleged credentials are irrelevant? You may well be a differential geometer, but has it occurred to you that some of the editors involved are actually expert in the topic and of the relevant literature? What matters is what the literature has to say, not your opinion or mine.

 * You seem to believe that this topic is a proper subset of differential geometry. It is not. It has its own literature and application, and while the mathematics of projection are the same either way, the terminology differs, the notational conventions differ, and most importantly, the field of map projections has a strong overlap with geodesy and whole host of concerns outside of differential geometry. If you have not read J.P. Snyder, L.P. Lee, and Deetz & Adams, then you are not an expert in this field. Your conventions are not the conventions of the map projections literature, and you cannot enforce them outside your field. When you blather on about only needing two coordinates and about how there’s nothing special about those dimensions and that you can’t project without losing some features and on and on, you’re completely wasting everyone’s time. The people you’re addressing are far beyond that. It’s not that people don’t get it; it’s that what you are saying is irrelevant. You are talking about a different topic and as much as you want this to be the topic you are talking about, it is not. Strebe (talk) 04:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

 * You are violating several wikipedia policies, including WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:GOODFAITH. Moreover, your representation of the credential policy is not correct.  Credentials are not "irrelevant", but are to be weighed by individual editors as they see fit ([i]cf.[/i], WP:CRED).  I am not "blather[ing]", I am a thoughtful person giving my views on that matter.

 * The title of the article is not "cartographic map projections". It is true if that were the article your view would be correct, since cartography is the practice of making maps, which are, at least to the present day, all two-dimensional.  But this is an article about map projections generally, and maps can be of any dimension (check out, [i]e.g.[/i], http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map).  The defining point with a projection, conceptually, is that you're going from something curved to something flat and that is impossible to do without "damage" of some sort.  That it's a sphere is most common but not necessary.  I understand that mathematical conventions are not your conventions, and that is fine.  That fact does not imply that mathematical conventions are irrelevant to the article.  My view is that mathematical conventions are relevant to the article--indeed essential to it.  Why?  Among other things, (1) A map projection is a fundamentally [i]mathematical[/i] process and not a matter of convention; (2) there is substantial mathematical discussion and notation in the article; (3) some sentences in the article are false no matter whether you take my approach or yours ([i]e.g.[/i] " a map projection is any method of 'flattening' into a plane a continuous surface having curvature in all three spatial dimensions" (you need not have curvature in all dimensions to produce a projection)).

 * I made an edit here. I agree that we need not get into the notion of higher-dimensional projections for the purposes of the article.  But we should not say that a sphere is 3-dimensional, because that is simply factually false, despite the colloquial usage and whatever your personalized usage is too.  If you are willing to concede that in the article I'm happy to remove the tag and not worry about the more obscure concerns of dimensionality.184.186.8.148 (talk) 06:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

 * “But we should not say that a sphere is 3-dimensional, because that is simply factually false, despite the colloquial usage and whatever your personalized usage is too.”

 * You seem offended when I interpret your behavior. You know what offends me? That you have consistently ignored the citations I have given for my assertions and ignored engaging any facts inconvenient to your position. Calling it my “personalize usage” is offensive, 184.186.8.148. I couldn’t care less if you interpret my behavior; that’s what people do and have to do, and the only difference between people in that regard is whether they voice that interpretation or not. If you’re right in your interpretation of my behavior then I have nothing to get offended about; if you’re wrong, I can’t imagine why I should care; and if you’re somewhere in between then maybe you’ve even given me something to think about. But when you repeatedly, consistently set up straw men to deflect attention from the salient matters, when you ignore all evidence that contradicts you, when you call definitions matters of fact rather than of definition and further insist that yours are the only true ones despite robust, reliable evidence to the contrary, you have shut down any means to converse or resolve anything. And that offends me.

 * And because it offends me, I will continue to interpret your behavior. Your purpose here is to win, at any price, even if you have to throw the truth under the bus. And that offends me too.

 * Meanwhile what matters for content is WP:VERIFIABILITY, not your assertions, not your unverifiable credentials, and not your application of conventions contrary to those prevalent in the domain. There is nothing to talk about when your only standard of correctness is yourself. Since there is nothing to talk about, you are not welcome on my talk page. I will delete anything further you post. Strebe (talk) 05:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Map projection". {| style="border: 0; width: 100%;"
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:

 * It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.

What this noticeboard is not:

 * It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
 * It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
 * It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
 * It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.

Things to remember:

 * Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors.   Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
 * Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
 * Sign and date your posts with four tildes " ".
 * If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

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

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer
This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. MGray98 (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 * Done. Strebe (talk) 06:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Featured picture candidates/Map Projections Set
[Also 46 others, not listed]
 * wow just saw these, good job strebe, silly idea but can the thumbnail versions of these appear in the maprojections template ?EdwardLane (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * EdwardLane, thanks. As for the template… ooh, you are determined to construct the largest template ever on Wikipedia! ;-) Strebe (talk) 08:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Made me laugh out loud there EdwardLane (talk) 08:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

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

 * Thanks for the note and good work, Czixhc.
 * “the "Map projections" section looks rather unfinished and rachitic, with only one map on the lower row, we need to put more maps there to make it look decent.” There is no fixed number of maps in a row. It depends on your browser window.
 * “you removed the map who adressed human displacement.” I have two comments about this. First, none of the galleries is intended to be an exhaustive display of maps of that category. The selection is always going to be haphazard and arbitrary, but the emphasis should be on material that broadly samples what is well represented in the literature. The theme of the map I removed is not well represented in the literature. Second, I cannot make any sense of it. I read the description several times. It still made no sense. If it confuses me, it will confuse most people.
 * the world map who adresses the winkel tripel projection is repeated and also appears as the mollweide map… The section on thematic maps focuses on the theme, not the projection. All else being equal, I agree a similar map on a different projection would be better, if available. But just because the same projection appears twice does not suggest to me any problem, since the article is not about projections specifically.
 * It also would be appropiate to shrink a bit the heading paragraph's tumnails… Wikipedia guidelines give a standard width of 220 pixels for thumbnails, but also states, Images containing important detail (for example, a map, diagram, or chart) may need larger sizes than usual to make them readable..
 * Finally, I'm thinking of writting a section dedicated to "Early maps" Thank you; the article needs much improvement. Strebe (talk) 03:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no fixed number of maps in a row. It depends on your browser window. I really doubt that it doesn't look rather bad on your window, or in most standard windows, and heading images invading the space of other sections is something unadmisible.

 * I’m sorry; I have no idea what you are seeing, but what I see looks just fine. The “heading images” do extend beyond the lede section, but those images are not specific to the lede; they illustrate the entire article. Also, the van Schagen map will go away soon; it was only added recently because it became a Featured Image and it needed a home. Strebe (talk) 06:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have two comments about this. First, none of the galleries is intended to be an exhaustive display of maps of that category. The selection is always going to be haphazard and arbitrary, but the emphasis should be on material that broadly samples what is well represented in the literature. The theme of the map I removed is not well represented in the literature. Second, I cannot make any sense of it. I read the description several times. It still made no sense. If it confuses me, it will confuse most people. To add two maps (because you keep one) is not to transform it on an exhaustive display, i was also thinking about adding a map regarding population density, I also don't see how the description confuses you, is rather clear, what is the part you have a problem with?.

 * Again, the theme of the map I removed does not appear commonly in the literature; it does not belong because of that. As for confusing: In this map the skin color is utilized as a way of highlighting (when compared to maps utilizing population data from earlier centuries) the effects of colonisation as well as migratory trends in the last century. How a map that purports to show skin color relates to colonization and migratory trends is completely obscure. Does the map show present skin color distributions? Historical? If one or the other, then it is a static map that says nothing about the dynamic flow of populations. The description suggests comparing against earlier maps, but those earlier maps are not present here. Also, as a criticism of the thematic presentation, it’s not clear what the value is of presenting the statical information by country, especially since such data compared against historical maps cannot match because country boundaries have changed. And so on. There’s just no context for this map. Strebe (talk)
 * Wikipedia guidelines give a standard width of 220 pixels for thumbnails, but also states, Images containing important detail (for example, a map, diagram, or chart) may need larger sizes than usual to make them readable.. I don't think that the manual of style favors images invading another images' space either, and no one of these maps is readable thumbnail-wise anyway.

 * My browsers (I tried several) don’t show any “invasion”. A map is not “readable” vs. “unreadable”. It is “more or less readable”. The larger it is, the more readable it is. Strebe (talk) 06:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The section on thematic maps focuses on the theme, not the projection. All else being equal, I agree a similar map on a different projection would be better, if available. But just because the same projection appears twice does not suggest to me any problem, since the article is not about projections specifically. In such case it would be better to include both statements on the description of a single imgage, not to repeat it don't you think? Czixhc (talk) 03:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

 * I think the section showing projections should name the projections. I think the section on thematic maps should describe the theme. There are image descriptions in the thematic section that mention the projection; there’s no good reason for that. Those descriptions need to be cleaned up a lot. Strebe (talk) 06:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've done various improvements: moved one of the historical maps of the heading secion to the section historical maps, i moved the pacific centric projection map from the thematic maps section to the map projections section, added a map for population density and removed the heading template, since all the references seem to be alright, I still have to write the early maps section, but it's something. Czixhc (talk) 00:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

 * I’ve commented on the Talk:World map page; any further discussion should go there. Strebe (talk) 03:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

 * See the new thread opened by Czixhc at WP:RSN. Dougweller (talk) 11:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

 * That’s fine. I don’t know why it’s in there. It’s out of context. Strebe (talk) 17:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

 * On Flat earth, removed the "main:Indian astronomy", because that article doesn't support what is written in this article anyway. Justicejayant (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

 * Spherical Earth, here, you must provide a explanatory edit summary that why you reverted the sourced material, which is agreed by others. Also provide on talk page that why you remove them, unless you should not revert them. Thanks Justicejayant (talk) 10:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by , Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter ''Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit | c 15:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

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

 * Hello Card Zero . Thanks for the note. “Terrain” sounds fairly specific to physical features of land such as its topography and vegetation. Yet the terms large scale and small scales refer to any map, even if it shows no planetary features at all. Whether continents could be included in the notion of “terrain” is debatable, and nations certainly are not included. The description in place now uses those geographic features as examples but does not imply they are necessary features of the map. Does that make sense? Strebe (talk) 03:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Yes, OK, a map could be of purely political boundaries, or of buildings, and neither of those is really terrain. Thank you for my edification. (The article also mentions a map of a virus as an example of the extreme end of the large scale, which I find a little odd, like Feynman's story of asking for "a map of the cat".) Card Zero  (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

POTD notification
Hi Strebe,

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

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

 * Hello again Crisco 1492. The images are correctly sized in relation to each other. You can overlay them at full resolution. Strebe (talk) 06:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So to put them side-by-side I'd keep them at their current resolutions (i.e. one at 2,060 × 2,060, and the other at 1,526 × 1,034)? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

 * That is correct. If you overlay the smaller on top of the larger and line up the edges of the "wings" of the smaller with the inner perimeter of the larger, you will see how to position the smaller vertically with respect to the larger. Strebe (talk) 08:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

 * How would you rather present the images on the main page, side-by-side or combined? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Hi Strebe,

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

POTD notification
Hi Strebe,

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

 * Thanks again, Crisco 1492. I have corrected the text of the image. For some reason the article has been proclaiming nonsense forever. Strebe (talk) 07:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Orthographic projection
Hi Strebe,

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

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

 * Hello Neelix. Thank you for working with me on this. I do not see anything in WP:NCDAB or WP:NATURAL that suggests your interpretation of the use of parenthetical disambiguation. Note there is an even stronger reason why “Orthographic projection map” is not an apt title: The article is about the projection, not about maps made from it. One could imagine an article dedicated to (for example, historical) maps based on the projection with nothing more than a brief characterization of the projection. Meanwhile I cannot think of any better title for the article than what it already has. Indeed, there are more articles that properly should take the same treatment, such as Stereographic projection. That article ought to be separated into the more general mathematical form (which is exceedingly commonly used in many domains of mathematics and physics) but also have its own treatment for cartography. In that case, again, there is no other useful way to disambiguate. In the case of the perspective projection, we fortunately have a name extant in the literature we were able to use that is unambiguously cartographic: General perspective projection. Meanwhile the broader category of perspective is handle by Perspective (graphical), which is a redirect from Perspective projection. Strebe (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

 * Thank you for getting back to me so soon. The problem is outlined in the policy on article title format, which states that we should "not use titles suggesting that one article forms part of another... For example, an article on transport in Azerbaijan should not be given a name like 'Azerbaijan/Transport' or 'Azerbaijan (transport)' – use Transport in Azerbaijan." Similarly in this case, the article is about orthographic projection in cartography, therefore "Orthographic projection in cartography" is an appropriate title, but "Orthographic projection (cartography)" and "Orthographic projection/Cartography" are not. What do you think of a move to "Orthographic projection in cartography"? Neelix (talk) 00:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

 * The Article titles policy you quote is inapplicable to this situation. The explanation and example they give has nothing to do with disambiguation, which is what WP:NCDAB and WP:NATURAL specifically allow the use of parentheticals for. Notice in the Azerbaijan example, “transport” does not disambiguate Azerbaijan. Nobody says only “Azerbaijan” while meaning “transport in Azerbaijan”. Meanwhile, the term “orthographic projection” alone usually refers to the cartographic usage, but may also refer to the more general mathematical description, depending on context. (And actually, orthographic view or projection is even more widely used than any of these articles acknowledge. In computer games, it generally refers to an oblique view, typically 45°, of the game space.) Strebe (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

 * I think this is the point on which we disagree. Disambiguation has nothing to do with the orthographic projection articles. Our editing guidelines on disambiguation state that "disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous—when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia." In the case of orthographic projection, however, the term does not refer to two distinct concepts ambiguously, because there is only one topic for which there are subtopics; the cartography article is a subarticle of the main orthographic projection article because the cartography article explains one application of the subject of the main article. This particular application is a very prominent one, but no amount of prominence negates the fact that it is an application of the main article's subject and therefore is a subtopic. Even if prominence of subtopics made them ambiguous with the main topic (which it doesn't), I am not convinced that the cartographic application of orthographic projection is the most common application as you suggest. Doing a Google Books search with the search phrase "orthographic projection", I am finding a lot of books about its applications to computer graphics and engineering design; the cartography books don't seem as numerous, or at least not obviously so. What are your thoughts? Neelix (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

 * This seems hyperbolic to me: Disambiguation has nothing to do with the orthographic projection articles. Disambiguation certainly has something to do with it. When people say “orthographic projection” outside of any context, the meaning is ambiguous because the same term applies either narrowly or broadly and it’s not clear which at the time. Even if the cartographic usage were a proper subset of the broader usage, the meaning would be ambiguous. But in point of fact it is not even that. Abstractly (but not notationally) the mathematics of the map projection intersect with the broader usage, but there is also a whole body of concerns that the cartographic usage covers that are not part of the mathematical usage. So, neither do I agree that a proper subset cannot be the subject of disambiguation; nor do I agree that the cartographic projection is merely a subset of the mathematical usage. Perhaps it is time to refer this matter to a neutral opinion. In any case, please do •something• about the current situation; “Orthographic projection map” is just not good and you’ve left several pages pointing to redirects.

 * And, by the way, orthographic projection is hardly unique in using a parenthetical disambiguator in more or less analogous situations. See The Hobbit (film_series), Map (mathematics), Map (computer science), Map (higher-order function), Perspective (visual), Perspective (graphical), Perspective (geometry), Water (classical element), Tone (linguistics), Tone (musical instrument), Spectrum (functional analysis), Spectrum (homotopy theory), Ballade (forme fixe), and who knows what else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strebe (talk • contribs)

 * I am not using hyperbole, as my previously cited definition of disambiguation demonstrates. Leaving pages pointing to redirects is not considered a bad thing on Wikipedia. You may be interested to read the guideline about fixing links to redirects that are not broken. The main article is not specific to a particular usage of orthographic projection; it is about orthographic projection in all its usages, therefore its usage in cartography is a subtopic of that main topic. Considering that you have requested that I implement some solution, I have implemented the one I have been recommending; the article is now called "Orthographic projection in cartography". I could continue to address your concerns and arguments, but if you intend to initiate a move discussion, I will save my responses for the broader discussion. Please let me know if you initiate such a discussion. Neelix (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Strebe,

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

 * As I probably don't need to point out explicitly, I could barely make heads or tails of the article we have (rather technical if I say so myself). I'd appreciate if you could have a look at the blurb and, hopefully, make it both accurate and accessible. If you don't have the time for both, accuracy first. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

 * Hello again Crisco 1492. Thanks for the notice and all the work you put into the POTD activities. I simplified the caption for the HEALPix image. I’m not going to try do to anything with the article itself, I don’t think; that would be hard to make it more accessible without just completely rewriting it. I can’t take that on right now, unfortunately. Strebe (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it looks great! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

POTD notification
Hi Strebe,

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

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

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

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

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

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

POTD notification
Hi Strebe,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Natural Earth projection SW.JPG is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on October 15, 2014. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2014-10-15. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

 * That’s great, Crisco 1492. Thanks. I’ve made minor edits. Strebe (talk) 03:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Strebe,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Cassini projection SW.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on November 17, 2014. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2014-11-17. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Strebe,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Guyou doubly periodic projection SW.JPG is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on December 4, 2014. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2014-12-04. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

 * Done. Thanks again, Crisco 1492! Strebe (talk) 02:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Always a pleasure! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Cartography and prehistoric topographic engravings
Hi Strebe, you've recently deleted some paragraphs on the "Cartography" Wiki page stating that "These artifacts are ambiguous and disputed, and the description is too detailed for the context". While I agree as concerns the too detailed description (I shortened it), I don't agree to the "ambiguous and disputed" condition of the items I'm treating, which are the so-called topographical prehistoric representations in the alpine rock art.

I'm an archaeologist with more than 30 years of experience in the field, and I know what I'm writing about: these "artifacts" act as real archaeological finds, are well dated by the study of the sequence of the engraving phases, and widely recognised by most scholars since the beginning of the last century as a plan depiction of human landscapes (cultivated plots or farms or villages), although some-way symbolic (but all maps are symbols...). So it's not the best choice to define them as ambiguous or questioned.

As being a zenith representation of a territory dating back to 4000-3500 BC (it's not a coincidence that it was the period of the agriculture revolution led by the use of the plough, but this is not a cartography matter), I don't understand why they shouldn't be cited in the history of cartography, indeed as the most ancient European and near-East landscape representation. I may add that, being in a mountain environment, a zenith view of of the land below, like the bottom of the valley or the opposite slope, is quite natural, and may provoke its depiction as a rock engraving; this is a further element which favours a topographic interpretation.

In conclusion, I hope you won't delete again this little contribution, which I think is valuable. It will be interesting for me to write a paper regarding which kind of consideration is granted to such subject, i.e, the engraved iconographic heritage, by scholars of other disciplines.

Many thanks and best of all.

Ruparch (AA) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruparch (talk • contribs) 22:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Hello Ruparch. Thanks for the note. I have copied your comment over to the Talk:Cartography page. Feel free to respond there. Strebe (talk) 09:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Hi Strebe (here the reply I posted to the Talk:Cartography page). Hi Strebe, many thanks four your reply. I'm not strictly an historian, but, as archaeologist, I obviously favour an historical perspective, which, for me, should never be discarded. Naturally I agree that it shouldn't be overwhelming. Regarding prehistoric topographic engravings, I would add (here and not in the Cartography wiki page, naturally…) that in the two main alpine rock art poles, which are Mt. Bego and Valcamonica, tenths and tenths of such engraved rocks show the so-called topographic compositions. As you say, the key is "so-called". But this case is far away from fiction-archaeology or press sensationalism or amateur archaeology: it is clear and self-evident  that the engraved geometric and repeated patterns are related to territorial anthropic elements (pls browse if you have any time the suggested references; I can't overload this page with more sample, but I've a lot); it should be disputed if they are fields, houses or shelters for herds: only in this sense. for me, the definition "disputable" may be applied. Their chronology is well testified by the superimposition among figures: these patterns are overlapped by full Copper Age (3000-2500 BC) dagger depictions, archaeologically dated, so they are older. Being so ancient, one thousand year older e.g. of the  Yorgan Tepe tablet (2300 BC), which anyway should be cited in the historical section of this Wiki page, no alphanumeric symbols is present, and poor relation is to be applied to the actual landscape, so making it more difficult to interpret. As I wrote, anyway,  the fact that such elements of a human-laboured landscape were depicted with a zenith view, fully justifies, IMHO, their inclusion in the history of cartography, as they already are, indeed, like in Delano Smith 1987, which I added to references. Best again - Ruparch Ruparch (talk) 12:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Strebe,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Winkel triple projection SW.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on December 28, 2014. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2014-12-28. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Strebe,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Tobler hyperelliptical projection SW.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on January 12, 2015. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2015-01-12. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Strebe,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Albers projection SW.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on January 29, 2015. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2015-01-29. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

 * It all looks fine. Thanks again! Strebe (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hobbit Undo
Hi! I disagree with your undo on The Hobbit but did not want to get persnickety by undoing an undo. I thought the detail addition minor and relevant. After all, it is an accurate addition of four words total: hardly "too much detail" I think. Should we move it to talk? HullIntegrity (talk) 19:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Strebe,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Werner projection SW.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on February 14, 2015. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2015-02-14. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Strebe,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Goode homolosine projection SW.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on February 26, 2015. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2015-02-26. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Done. Many thanks for your unceasing efforts, Crisco 1492. Strebe (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Strebe,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Littrow projection SW.JPG is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on March 11, 2015. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2015-03-11. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, these will be spaced at about 10-12 days each now until they're gone, as the FIFO process has caught up. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Done! Thanks. Strebe (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Excellent! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Strebe,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Sinusoidal projection SW.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on March 22, 2015. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2015-03-22. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

 * I think that’s all okay as is. Thank you, Crisco 1492!
 * Great! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Great images
Hello, Strebe -- I just want to tell you how much I like the images, the map projection distortions in plum and mint colors on your user page. I see you work with maps. I love maps, but don't know anything about making them. CorinneSD (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Or is it wine and forest green... CorinneSD (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Depends on whether you prefer wine to plums. A little plum wine, perhaps (梅酒 = umeshu)? (Though that’s typically chartreuse.) Thank you kindly for the note! Hopefully you’ll see more you like. Many, many images have appeared as Picture of the day; see the notices above. Quite a beautiful page of images you’re accruing yourself, by the way. Strebe (talk) 03:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Thanks! I was wondering whether you had made a spherical map, a globe, that could spin. I've seen animated images in some articles. I looked in the article Globe but didn't see one. I wanted to ask you about something in Globe. I noticed that one image that is in the middle of the article of a globe made by Muhammad Salih Tahtawi in the 1600s is also in the gallery at the bottom. I don't think it has to be in the article twice, do you? CorinneSD (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - That would actually be a very useful animation. Mind, whenever I read about these map projections, I think about this comic. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Why yes, I have created spinning globe animations. Please contact me by e-mail for a link to one. It is a 385MB file, and not in a format that Commons accepts. I don’t want to convert it because format conversions always create compression and antialiasing artifacts which would be starkly apparent and objectionable on this imagery. The perspective zooms in and back out as the globe rotates, showing the change in limb visibility as the you get closer and then retreat. I could put together something a little less snobby, perhaps.

 * I hadn’t been following Globe, but course you are right. I tidied up a bit. Needs more work! Strebe (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What if you used a video instead of a GIF? WEBM is supported. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Oh, they’re not GIF. I’ve tried a variety of formats. Few are suitable due to compression artifacts. The particular animation I had in mind is in .mov format. I don’t think I’ve tried .webm specifically. I’ll give it a whirl. Strebe (talk) 03:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sadly it's one of only two video formats Commons accepts. The other, .ogv, seems to be being phased out. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Here you go. Played in a browser, it’s got more stutters than I would like. You’re better off using a stand-alone media player. The original is beautifully smooth. Strebe (talk) 08:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's lovely, but appears upside down (?) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

 * One face of it is. But spin it around. The text gradually moves upright. This is an artifact of the source map being reprojected. Strebe (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Graphic
You might be interested in the discussion regarding a graphic representation of a plant virus at Featured picture candidates/TMV diagram. I've been trying to help, but since I know nothing about viruses and very little about graphic design, I may not be helping very much. I thought of you since you seem to know how to design things. Maybe you could help improve the diagram. (You might consider moving the discussion to the designer's talk page. Discussions at WP:FP don't usually go on too long.) CorinneSD (talk) 01:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Could you do some very large projections?
Hello Strebe, I'm a big fan of your work on map projections here, awesome work!

I need some for a non profit Foundation for printing wall size, would you be willing to do a couple of custom Goode and Vertical Projections for that purpose? they're willing to pay for your work. As soon as I was asked for some projections I inmediatelly remembered your work and came here first :) You can find me in Skype, user: akma72

Thanks and sorry for the bother --Akma72 (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thank you very kindy, Akma72! Strebe (talk) 03:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Mercator “presented” his projection versus “used in maps”
Hi, Strebe,

You claim that it’s “not accurate” to say that Mercator used his eponymous projection in his own maps:

> The Mercator projection is a cylindrical map projection used in maps published by the Flemish geographer and cartographer Gerardus Mercator in 1569.

preferring instead

> The Mercator projection is a cylindrical map projection presented by the Flemish geographer and cartographer Gerardus Mercator in 1569.

This is his map from 1569:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mercator_1569.png

so why do you say the first sentence is not accurate?

The term ”presented” implies that he merely described it, perhaps in a paper or a talk. It does not necessarily imply that he made a map with it, which he did. So I would argue that the first statement is more accurate by providing more detail about what he did. And that it’s an important detail!

— Andy Anderson 11:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aanderson@amherst.edu (talk • contribs)

 * Hello Aanderson@amherst.edu. Thanks for the note. Two things. First, the text as you had it implies Mercator published more than one map on the projection in 1569. That is not true. Second, your edit does not actually show or even imply that Mercator invented the projection. He simply “used” it. While it is true that he first used it in his 1569 map, more importantly, he presented the projection. The text and diagrams on the map describe the projection and its uses. The map was made in order to present the projection. Does that help? Strebe (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

 * Hi, Strebe. If your concern is the number of maps published by Mercator, you can change the text “map” to “a map” for the same effect, and that would describe the abstract idea of the map he created. However, according to Mercator_1569_world_map hundreds of physical copies were produced. This article also indicates that there were several versions produced, though whether they were simply rescalings and recuttings or were updated in some way is unclear. Regarding whether Mercator invented the projection, your text “presented by” says absolutely nothing about this, either. There is also a discussion later in this article about others who described this projection earlier than Mercator, and do you know for certain that Mercator was not aware of them? If you do, it would be much better to say directly that the projection was “invented and published by” him. Otherwise, perhaps “used and described in maps published by” would be a better choice. But “present” seems very wrong to me, it implies a formal or ceremonial display of the projection, for which you provide no supporting evidence, rather than a description printed on the map. The word “published” still seems much more more accurate to me. Thanks, Andy Anderson 11:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aanderson@amherst.edu (talk • contribs)

 * Hello again Aanderson@amherst.edu.
 * In English when discussing publications, we use plural to indicate publications having distinct content, not printed copies of a publication, unless the context is clear. Publishing “a map” means putting out a printed edition of many copies, not printing one map.
 * The “versions” were not 1569.
 * The list of developments around the Mercator projection do not mention anyone who described the projection before Mercator. The only question surrounds some maps of Etzlab that are evocative of the Mercator. Etzlab did not “describe” the projection or present it, either one. He put out some maps, the origin and principles of which remain obscure. Monmonier concludes, “More telling is Etzlab’s apparent failure to tout his accomplishment in a published article or private correspondence. In Kretschmer’s opinion, it is "rather unlikely that a famous instrument maker and cartographer like Erhard Etzlab would not have mentioned [his development of] a new projection."” It is possible Etzlab “invented” the projection, but he did not present it. Mercator presented it—and presumably invented it, but at least “presented” implies he intended to claim he did, where as “published” says nothing useful other than that he drafted maps on the projection, as hundreds of thousands of mapmakers have ever since.
 * In English when discussing origination of a thing or idea, “presented” certainly does not mean “ceremonial”. You have taken merely the first of many definitions from the Oxford American Dictionary and somehow ignored the rest, such as show or offer (something) for others to scrutinize or consider. “Presented”, when discussing the origination of a thing or idea, is exposing one’s development to the world in order to describe the thing or idea and to stake a claim to its origin. This is completely normal usage. You find it everywhere in the history of invention and academia. “Presented” may mean something as formal as a research paper or it may be something as simple as… publishing a map and making claims about it, as Mercator did.
 * Strebe (talk) 07:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Good morning, Strebe.
 * You are right about the usual use of plural (as I previously indicated), though I have seen “published” used with plural on occasion, in reference to many copies that might include variants. The primary issue is if there was more than one version, which seems uncertain from the article I referenced, including the dates (see, specifically, the Rotterdam_map, also possibly from 1569). But I am fine with using the singular, I was just trying to allow for possibilities.
 * This article also mentions Nunes, who preceded Mercator and first described the basic principles of the map. And the text that Mercator included on his map indicates that he drew extensively on other maps to make his own, so he quite possibly was aware of Nunes’ work. I am not trying to minimize Mercator’s creativity, he does seem to have been the first in bringing these elements together in a comprehensive map and describing in detail how he did it. But the point here is that I don’t think the word “present” in any way indicates this by itself, it needs help.
 * As a native English speaker, your use of the word “present” here just seems wrong to me, I think because it is missing the context. Like the Oxford English dictionary I did say the word indicates *either* “formal” *or* “ceremonial” use, but in that use the dictionary indicates that a prepositional phrase is necessary for this verb to provide that context. Let me suggest the following compromise: “The Mercator projection is a cylindrical map projection first presented in detail by the Flemish geographer and cartographer Gerardus Mercator in the insets of the map he published in 1569.”

 * Aanderson@amherst.edu,
 * Nunes did not develop the principles of the map. He developed the principles of rhumbs. This was a necessary step in the development of the map, but to say he described the map or its principles makes no more sense than saying James Watt described the steam locomotive because he developed a practical steam engine. And of course Mercator was aware of Nunes’s work; they met several times and corresponded extensively as friends.

 * I am sorry you have no precedent for this usage of “present”. It is not ‘my’ use; it is that of whoever wrote it. But it is lucid, accurate, normal usage, so I never thought twice about it. The term is used widely, as I described, and everywhere in the map projection literature. I would be happy to give myriad examples if you need them.

 * Your proposal is deficient because it makes it sound like someone else presented the projection, though not in detail, before Mercator. No one did. Meanwhile I’m mystified because your proposal still uses the word “present”, which I thought you were arguing against. If you’re not arguing against it, then let’s please just leave it as it is. Again, I’m sorry you don’t recognize the usage, but it has been there for nine years without complaint, presumably because it seemed reasonable to everyone else in this heavily trafficked article. Strebe (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

 * Hi, Strebe,

 * I did not say that Nunes “described the map”, rather the “principle of the map”, because when you establish the mathematical relationship between the rhumb line and the meridian, as Nunes did, you have the mathematical description of the Mercator projection. Mercator’s description of the projection is in plainer language (“we have progressively increased the degrees of latitude towards each pole in proportion to the lengthening of the parallels with reference to the equator”), and whether this understanding was due to him or others such as Nunes I can’t say, but my Encyclopedia Britannica says “Mercator was neither the inventor nor the first user of this projection; but he was the first to apply it (by an empirical method) in a nautical chart for the use of seamen.” Unhelpfully it doesn’t say who “the inventor” actually was.

 * Yes, I would very much like to see the examples of this usage of “present” that you speak of. I suspect that they will all have an associated prepositional phrase, or an implied one from previous sentences, to provide context.

 * How about this: “The Mercator projection is a cylindrical map projection presented by the Flemish geographer and cartographer Gerardus Mercator in the insets of the map he published in 1569.” I am including the word “presented” here because I am also providing the prepositional phrase that I argue must be present to provide context. Existence in this article for such a long time and viewed by many people in no way means it is correct, that’s argumentum ad populum.

 * — Andy Anderson 19:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aanderson@amherst.edu (talk • contribs)

 * Aanderson@amherst.edu,
 * No, sorry; your evocation of argumentum ad populum is a referential fallacy. An appeal to the populace is correct here because the populace defines word usage; a word usage is not correct independently of usage, and there is no other authority. If you are a member of some small minority that does not recognize the meaning of a word, the burden does not fall on the rest of the world to accommodate you.

 * No, sorry; Nunes did not describe the principle of the map; he described the principles of rhumbs, as already stated. The relationship between the rhumb and the meridian does not establish “the” principle of the Mercator map; it establishes the relationship of the rhumb to the meridian as a purely local consideration. Mercator’s innovation was how to express all rhumbs simultaneously as straight lines, no matter how long the rhumbs are—even traversing the entire earth. If you will read the Pedro Nunes section, you will see that Nunes puzzled over how to achieve this but failed.

 * I applaud Encyclopædia Britannica for the effort, but ultimately the article confuses the matter. Modern scholars (See Monmonier (2004), Snyder (1993), Gaspar & Leitão (2013), Norenskjöld (1889), Breusing (1892), Müller-Reinhard (1914), Krücken (1994 & 2012), and many others, with no dissent) all agree Mercator is the inventor. I assume the Britannica article’s author had Etzlaub in mind, not Nunes, because nobody imagined Nunes invented the projection. While Etzlaub is evocative, map projection historians agree his efforts culminated in nothing and cannot be shown unambiguously to be equivalent to the Mercator projection. Also, increasingly detailed and contextual analyses (most recently Gaspar & Leitão) show that Mercator’s method likely was not empirical. And in any case, the question here is who presented the projection, and that is unambiguously Mercator.

 * Mercator did not just present in the insets; the entire map is the presentation. And your strange insistence on a prepositional phrase—beyond what is already present (in 1569), presumably? Why is that not sufficient, and what then would suffice?—is not honored in endless examples, though no doubt you will also confuse a plethora of examples with argumentum ad populum, leaving your thesis amusingly irrefutable:

 * This example really ought to shut down this line of inquiry entirely. Snyder (1993, Flattening the Earth p. 44) writes specifically about this very thing: In 1544, Mercator was one of dozens of Louvain inhabitants arrested and imprisoned for heresy. Five were executed, but after seven months Mercator, who was strongly supported by Louvain authorities, was cleared and released. In 1552 he moved to Duisburg, Germany, where he presented his cylindrical projection in 1569 and prepared numerous maps and terrestrial globes. No additional prepositional phrase in sight. Usage is the same as in the article. Snyder uses “presented” this way countless times in his myriad writings about the history of map projections. This same usage is replete in the map projection literature by all authors, such as:
 * From Monmonier, Rhumb Lines and Map Wars (2004), p. 105: In 1822, the German mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777–1855), at work on a highly precise survey of Hannover, presented formulas for a more exact transverse Mercator framework, based on an oblate globe, flattened at the poles and a bit broader at the equator. And many other examples in the same work.
 * When Su Song's Xinyi Xiangfayao was written in 1092 and the horological monograph finalized and presented in 1094, his work was published and widely printed in the north (see woodblock printing and movable type of Bi Sheng).
 * The fields were discovered in 1984. The development plan was presented by Statoil in 2001.
 * Several physicists have presented calculations that show that the second law of thermodynamics will not actually be violated, if a more complete analysis is made of the whole system including the demon.
 * His broadcasting career has expanded in range and he has presented several Miss World contests.
 * With John Mauchly he invented the first general-purpose electronic digital computer (ENIAC), presented the first course in computing topics (the Moore School Lectures), founded the first commercial computer company…

 * This discussion has grown tedious and unproductive. If you wish to persist, then please take it to the Talk:Mercator page where other interested parties can weigh in. However, you’re unlikely to find any sympathy for your thesis. Thanks for your efforts. Strebe (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Strebe,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Aitoff projection SW.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 11, 2015. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2015-05-11. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

 * Done! As ever, thanks Crisco 1492. Strebe (talk) 07:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And thank you, too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Reversion
So, you reverted my edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Byte_order_mark&oldid=prev&diff=660910568

Which, you know, isn't very nice. Prior to my edit, there's nothing in the opening paragraph that gives even a hint as to how a single character can actually communicate what the byte order is. If you think my statement is inaccurate, please improve it, but wholesale reverting a good faith edit that adds useful information to an opening paragraph is just being rude. Would love to see you reinstate some improved version. Stevage 10:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

 * Stevage: I did not see any trivial way to repair the edit while leaving any of it. I think I see what you were trying to remedy. I took a stab at it. Let’s move any further discussion to the Talk:Byte order mark page. Strebe (talk) 03:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Altai mountains
Hello, Strebe - I was just looking at the article Altai mountains, and I was looking at the map in the lede/infobox. I don't think it's a particularly good map. It's a bit fuzzy and the labels are not in English. I'm wondering if you could find a better map. CorinneSD (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

 * Hello CorinneSD. Yes, that map needs help. I don’t see anything better on Commons. I’m also not much of a cartographer myself; my own work is all about map projections, so I’m not in a good position to create a replacement, unfortunately. I encourage you to add a request on the Talk:Altai Mountains page. Thanks! Strebe (talk) 05:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Graphics Lab/Map workshop may also help. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

 * Thank you, both. I left a request at the Graphics Lab/Map workshop page. Strebe, I guess I don't understand what you do and how doing map projections can be separated from cartography. CorinneSD (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

 * Hello CorinneSD. Map projections are pretty mathematical. Not a lot of mapmakers deal with them in any sense other than as off-the-shelf components for a map. Meanwhile those who research map projections tend not to be practicing cartographers. For a researcher the applicability of a projection to maps is important, but gets a lot more abstract than just that, and tends not to have much to do with any of the many other considerations that go into in making a map. Strebe (talk) 03:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the explanation, Strebe. I thought there were just a few basic map projections (Mercator, etc.) and that's it. What's the need for developing others? Is it more of a hobby or is there a real practical need for new projections? CorinneSD (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

 * I left a request at the Graphics Lab/Map workshop page on 11 May 2015 for this and for another map, but no one has responded to either request. CorinneSD (talk) 02:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

 * I’m not finding anyone who will take this on, either. :-( Honestly, a lot of maps need help. Wikipedia needs far more maps than there are mapmakers to accommodate the need, it seems. Strebe (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Hello CorinneSD. I have entered this map into the FixWikiMaps database. Hopefully it will see some attention. Strebe (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Strebe,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Bottomley projection SW.JPG is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on June 19, 2015. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2015-06-19. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

 * Well hello Chris Woodrich. Thanks for the note. I think this time we can shove it out as-is! Keep up the fine work. Strebe (talk) 06:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Strebe,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Hobo–Dyer projection SW.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on July 6, 2015. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2015-07-06. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Looks good. Thanks, talk! Strebe (talk) 02:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Always a pleasure. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Strebe,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Kavraiskiy VII projection SW.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on July 21, 2015. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2015-07-21. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Space-oblique_Mercator_projection
Just found this article Space-oblique_Mercator_projection it probably needs some attention from someone such as yourself ? EdwardLane (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

 * Thanks, EdwardLane! I have added it to my watch list and will give it some attention when I get time. Strebe (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways: Sign up now Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
 * Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
 * Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
 * Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
 * Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
 * Research coordinators: run reference services

POTD notification
Hi Strebe,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Craig projection SW.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on August 19, 2015. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2015-08-19. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, Chris Woodrich. I revised the article and made small changes to the template. Should be good to go. Strebe (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Strebe,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Gnomonic projection SW.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on September 9, 2015. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2015-09-09. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Strebe,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Chamberlin trimetric projection SW.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on October 2, 2015. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2015-10-02. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Mercator projection
Please only revert contributions, when editors have blatantly violated Wikipedia's policies, and not based on what you think should be in the article or not. Be aware that promoting your point of view on Wikipedia may be considered vandalism. You may be blocked from editing without further notice the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

 * If there is a WP:POV problem here—and there is not—then of course it applies to you as well, Jamie Tubers. And don’t bother with threats: You both do not understand the policies you quote and further are in violation of WP:CIVILITY. Strebe (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Strebe,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Behrmann projection SW.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on October 16, 2015. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2015-10-16. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

 * Done. As always, thanks, Chris Woodrich! Strebe (talk) 02:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Flat Earth
What do you mean? "There is no "advocacy". It's in the lede because it's what people might often be looking for when coming to this article." They are looking for information from a religious group that wants to change history and promoted their own view of science? They are an intelligent design advocacy group. This is pseudoscience garbage disguised as science. Lipsquid (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "We believe that in creating and preserving the universe God has endowed it with contingent order and intelligibility, the basis of scientific investigation." Lipsquid (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

 * You are ranting, Lipsquid. The source isn’t the site the talk was hosted on. The source is Russell, and there’s nothing in it about intelligent design—and even if there were, that wouldn’t have been an excuse to delete it, since it’s irrelevant to the topic. Get a grip, man. Strebe (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

 * Not ranting, if it has another source, then use it. It still doesn't change the fact that a clarification of the view of one religion at allegedly one point in time, does not belong in the lede.  Do Muslims get to clarify their view in the lede?  Do the Chinese get to clarify their view in the lede?  None of this matters to the central part of the article which is that at various times, various people have believed, or do believe, the earth is flat.  I did not change it in the body of the article which is where it belongs.  ASA3.org is definitely an advocacy group.  I have complete grip of my faculties including the ability to articulate a position with logic.  :) Lipsquid (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

FYI: I have started an ANI discussion about this incident. LjL (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Strebe,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Eckert II projection SW.JPG is schedule to be Picture of the Day on November 1, 2015. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2015-11-01. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Rhumblines, Windroses and Portolan
Hi Strebe, seems like an interesting conversation going on here that you might be the (informed) third person in the discussion - so it can be sorted out?

EdwardLane (talk) 12:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

 * Thanks for alerting me, EdwardLane. I have chimed in. Strebe (talk) 15:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Strebe,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Vertical perspective SW.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on November 29, 2015. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2015-11-28. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Strebe,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Gall–Peters projection SW.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on December 15, 2015. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2015-12-15. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Exaplanation
Please use your edit summaries for explanations when reverting. Thank you. Judist (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Gall–Peters projection
Hello, Strebe. I'm coming to you since you seem to be a knowledgeable person involved with the article. I tried to read the Controversies section, but had difficulty with the sequence of events because of references to "the previous century" and "twenty years earlier" with no date given as the starting point. I think I've figured it out, but it would probably be better for someone better versed in the topic to tweak that paragraph/section. Cheers, Awien (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Strebe,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Bonne projection SW.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on January 7, 2016. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2016-01-07. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

 * I rearranged it slightly and it’s ready to go now. Thanks, Chris Woodrich! Strebe (talk) 20:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Strebe,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Stereographic projection SW.JPG is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on January 23, 2016. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2016-01-23. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Strebe,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Van der Grinten projection SW.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on February 10, 2016. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2016-02-10. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Map projection edit
Hi there. Someone reported on the IRC that in that article section titles were appended by [edit] links that were the same size as the section headings themselves, with no space in between. We were trying to account for why that is, and removing did the trick of restoring normalcy. --Mareklug talk 15:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Was that problem reported against mobile, Mareklug? I don’t see any problem on desktop. In any case, page numbers are important. :-\ Strebe (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dire wolf, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Hunter. 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) 11:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Strebe,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Cylindrical equal-area projection SW.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on February 27, 2016. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2016-02-27. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

 * Hello Chris Woodrich. I made an important correction as requested below. Thanks! Strebe (talk) 10:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

POTD problem
In the POTD mentioned in the previous section, the picture text doesn't match the picture. It says "Cylindrical projections stretch distances east-west ..." and goes on about north–south compression. But the only visible example is a map whose most noticeable feature is an Africa stretched north to south, not east to west. The rectangles are 15 by 15 degrees, so they would be squares near the equator without north–south or east–west compression. So can we reword the description to match the picture? Art LaPella (talk) 03:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

 * Good point, Art LaPella. I have made a correction to the template. Strebe (talk) 10:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Strebe. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Strebe,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Wagner VI projection SW.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on March 13, 2016. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2016-03-13. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

 * Done. Thanks for your tireless work, Chris Woodrich! Strebe (talk) 03:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Strebe,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Ecker IV projection SW.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on April 3, 2016. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2016-04-03. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Strebe,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Peirce quincuncial projection SW 20W.JPG is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on April 14, 2016. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2016-04-14. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Strebe,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Azimuthal equidistant projection SW.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on May 19, 2016. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2016-05-19. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Strebe,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Hammer projection SW.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on June 6, 2016. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2016-06-06. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

edit warring and ownership behavior....
hello. You may have had a valid point about wrong placement, in the paragraph about earth (possibly), but that's why the more respectful edit would be to simply re-locate to the more apropos paragraph, just before...but you didn't do that, because you just don't like or want the phrase "perfect sphere" in any sense, even when said to be "commonly called" etc...anywhere anyhow. And that's ownership activity, and hogging, mainly for "I don't like" reasons, but always given front excuses of "redundant" and "not accurate" or 'not needed' or whatever. But look up NO OWN.... Seriously. TOO many contributors on Wikipedia commit that, and always deny they're doing it of course. This is a wiki, and your arrogant ownership and bullying behavior I won't tolerate, and I will report. This was MARK'S own wording... You have no business deleting stuff you don't like.... Non-valid removal restored. see article Talk... If the statement was not in the best paragraph, that's a valid point, but deleting it completely instead of relocating it better, with the excuse of "repetition" is not valid cuz YOU JUST DON'T LIKE "PERFECT SPHERE" anywhere in the article. That's really what it boils down to, despite Mark's comments and points on Talk. No consensus against putting Mark's compromise suggestion. Anyway, I did better placement...instead of wholesale removal. Redzemp (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

 * Redzemp, how is it that you don’t recognize that your complaints of NO OWN and edit warring apply just as well to you? Stay off my Talk page. I’m tired of your abusive accusations, your time wasting, and the fact that you’re wrong, over and over and over. I will delete any further edits you make here. Strebe (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Strebe, although I agree with your reverts, you should cut back on them. You appear to be in violation of WP:3RR and are in danger of getting blocked for edit warring, especially because there is already a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring about Redzemp's edit-warring where your own edits have also been mentioned. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

 * Thanks, David Eppstein. Strebe (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Warned for edit warring at Spheroid
You've been warned for edit warring per the outcome of this complaint. Your reverts of User:Redzemp are not exempt from 3RR. I recommend you take a break from editing the article and limit yourself to the talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

 * Thanks, EdJohnston. Censure accepted. Strebe (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Strebe,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:American Polyconic projection.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on July 8, 2016. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2016-07-08. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Strebe,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Gall Stereographic projection SW.JPG is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on July 23, 2016. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2016-07-23. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Strebe,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Equirectangular projection SW.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on August 9, 2016. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2016-08-09. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Done! Cheers, and keep up the fine work, Chris Woodrich. Strebe (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Strebe it's me again, has the progress on that request any closer to being finished ?? Drax90 (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Strebe,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Lambert azimuthal equal-area projection SW.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on September 7, 2016. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2016-09-07. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Strebe,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Lambert conformal conic projection SW.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on September 21, 2016. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2016-09-21. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Web Mercator
I'm new to editing in Wikipedia - and I welcome you suggestion that I take my comments to the TALK section for this article. I ask you to have an open mind when you read my comments...

I will tell you up front that I have been in personal contact with two of the USGS authors of the Journal Publication "Implications of Web Mercator and Its Use in Online Mapping" found in reference 2 of the Web Mercator article. The feedback I have from them is there is nothing wrong with the Web Mercator projection. The sense is - it is appropriate for its intended use - internet or mobile mapping - because it is quick.

Probably over a billion people use the projection every day on Bing, Google Maps, Waze and many others - and they all get to their locations... The position that there are inherent location errors associated with the projection have simply not be technically substantiated...

There is no technical evidence to justify the statement in the first paragraph under Properties that errors up to 35KM are possible. The Web Mercator projection is an EXACT mathematical projection of the WGS84 ellipsoid from 3D to 2D using the equations found in EPSG:3857. A user viewing a properly created Web Mercator projection on a web or mobile mapping device can derive the exact WGS84 ellipsoidal coordinates of the location specified on the screen by the software working backward from the X&Y value indicated for that location on the screen on the Web Mercator projection. The is no error.

I believe this misconception that Web Mercator has errors follows from the train of thought that the Web Mercator projection uses the same equations used to project a sphere onto a cylinder tangent to the sphere at the equator. The projection of a sphere onto a cylinder which is tangent at the equator can be achieved both graphically (think light bulb at center of the sphere) and mathematically - using equations from EPSG:3785. The Web Mercator projection cannot be achieved graphically... It should be considered an abstract projection (and there are an infinite number of possible abstract projections) in that it can only be produced mathematically. The Web Mercator projection can not be "graphically" created from an ellipsoid with a cylinder tangent to the equator... It is created using the equations from EPSG:3857 - which happen to be the same equations as found in EPSG:3785. But - it is not a spherical projection of an ellipsoid (there is no sphere in Web Mercator)... It is a mathematical projection of the WGS84 ellipsoid into a 2D space - which happens to use the same equations which mathematically represent the graphical projection of a sphere onto a cylinder which is tangent to the sphere at the equator...  Both the Web Mercator and the Mercator Projection (where the "e" is not zero) of the WGS84 ellipsoid "stretch" in the Y direction as one moves away from the equator. The Web Mercator stretches in Y slightly more than the Mercator projection as the polar diameter being slightly shorter than the equatorial diameter of the WGS84 ellipsoid is not taken into account in this mathematical projection. The only way a user may possibly generate a 37 KM error is if the user incorrectly attempts to combine them in the same X&Y coordinate plane - and then goes on to make more mistakes. Take a look at the website in the first external link I have provided. In the introduction section - take a look at the map projections shown under the link for "Three Different Map Projections of the United States". The projections appear offset - but there is no error in the two conformal projections... An uneducated user of the two projections may be able to generate some errors in his or her calculations - but there is no error per say in the projections themselves...

Much of this mis-information regarding the Web Mercator projection seems to follow from the publication found in reference 1 of the Web Mercator article.

Figure A2 in Appendix A-6 of this document misrepresents the facts regarding the Mercator and Web Mercator projection. There is absolutely no location errors from either of the projections. The X&Y coordinate axis which is needed to plot these two projections in the 2D plane was left out. There should be separate 50 and 60 degree latitude lines for each projection in that figure... Again - there is no error in either of the projections - other than the typical distortions which occur when one project a 3D object into the 2D realm.

There are ample examples that the Web Mercator projection yields the correct WGS84 latitude and longitude... One of many is found in the second external link I have provided below.

The reference to the EPSG comments regarding the Web Mercator projection are also suspect (not the references to them - but the comments themselves) - which is a topic of another effort to resolve...

This is plain and simple math. There are no location errors associated with the Web Mercator projection. I challenge you to provide ONE example of a location found in a Web Mercator projection yielding a latitude and longitude which is not within meters of the actual WGS84 coordinates of that location (pick out a survey marker visible in Google Maps)... Pick a spot in Northern England...  Unless you can demonstrate there is an actual error - I believe this article needs to be revised...

POTD notification
Hi Strebe,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Mercator projection SW.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on October 6, 2016. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2016-10-06. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Strebe,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Miller projection SW.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on October 19, 2016. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2016-10-19. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Strebe,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Robinson projection SW.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on November 2, 2016. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2016-11-02. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Followed by
Hi Strebe, I've just been glancing through the above talk topics, and I'm in awe of your work. Getting to my topic, I note your recent edit & comment on the Followed By label in The Hobbit. Looking at how this is used for other authors' works, one notes e.g. that Oliver Twist is 'followed by' Nicholas Nickleby, although NN is not a sequel of OT. The Hobbit (1937) was followed by Leaf by Niggle (1945, albeit not in its own book), then Farmer Giles of Ham (definitely in its own book): both definitely published before LotR. At the same time I definitely think it's important to include LotR in The Hobbit's info box. Perhaps a separate label 'Sequel'? Regards Jungleboy63 (talk) 01:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC) Jungleboy63 (talk) 01:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

 * Jungleboy63, many thanks for your kind words and for your efforts over on The Hobbit. You’ll have noticed that I have commented at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth. With your note about a separate label for “sequel”, I don’t think we’re very far apart. I just want to emphasize the importance of considering the reasons for providing information. For me, the sequel designation makes perfect sense: a typical reader wants to know what to read before or after “this” book (or even which Wikipedia article to read after reading “this article”). I think far fewer readers want to know what story happened to get published next by the same author. After all, publication sequence doesn’t necessarily say anything about the author’s activities, since many works are published long after they were written, and in any case the article isn’t about the author’s activities; it’s about a particular book. Therefore, consuming space in an info box for bibliographic ordering feels to me to be more more like taking up space with mindless cataloging than like helping readers with pithy information they want. Does that makes sense? Strebe (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Authagraph
thought this article might be of interest Authagraph EdwardLane (talk) 10:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

 * Never fear; I've been following the article since near its inception. For the past week articles about its selection for Good Design Award by Japanese Institute of Design Promotion have been posted on my Facebook page and inquiries have been pouring in by e-mail. I realized the article wasn't named as per convention, and also decided to do a little clean-up. Thanks for poking at me, EdwardLane! Strebe (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Strebe,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Lambert cylindrical equal-area projection SW.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on December 18, 2016. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2016-12-18. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Strebe,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Mollweide projection SW.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on January 2, 2017. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2017-01-02. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Spherical UTM
I am agree spherical UTM may be an abstraction, but they are useful in this way. As wikipedia is an encyclopedia I think spherical UTM have its own place on the UTM page.

Why don't set a remark rather than clean the spherical form ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julien2512 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

MIller proj4 ref
Sorry for that. I set this ref a bit early ... I will set it back later when the miller proj4 page will be ended up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julien2512 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Umami talk page
Strebe: I don't understand your edit here of the troll comments by GR.no. First is the policy of WP:TALKO which indicates there should be no editing of Talk comments. Second is your edit of GR.no's false comment about PubMed, seemingly to reinforce the distorted incorrect belief of GR.no that PubMed is not a credible source; it's the source for references in WP:MED articles. Third is the general editing you did, seemingly to selectively edit and confirm what the troll was saying about the strange claim by GR.no that the umami concept is fake. You are an experienced editor, but this participation is strangely curious, if not certainly misdirected. Comments? --Zefr (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

 * Thanks for apprising me, Zefr. I was not aware of the WP:TALKO policy. I’ll restore what I deleted. I was not selective in what I deleted; I simply removed all edits after the last one not made by GR.no by reason that removing further edits would thereby be easy. Strebe (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, please revisit the Talk page and article edits to review and keep watch on the issues and behavior of editor GR.no under "Not used in science" and "Umami receptors - Yu study". Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Making map projections
Hi Strebe, I've got an idea for a hex based map of the earth - but I'm currently struggling with the map projection

Do you know a practical way to take an image such as the one to the right - and distort (not crop) it into a regular hexagon? I'm trying to get the northern half of the world on one hex, (sides roughly aligned with pacific, americas, atlantic, western, central and eastern eurasia) and then the southern half on a second hex - and then make something a bit like a rotating computer based dymaxion map - I'm not entirely worried about the conformal/not aspects of the image it won't conform to directions (except perhaps logitude/great circle) anyway - and clearly with the distortion that will also affect scale, but I'd like to avoid cropping off sections of the surface that seems 'wrong'.

I don't know if you have any suggestions of ways to go about it - every art package I look at online seems to let you warp to squares but not to hexagonal. (I think GIMP lets you do 'curve bend' as a way i might be able to manually distort things)

mathematically it should be possible (based on this http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/212121/is-there-a-map-from-a-segment-to-a-triangle) but that's pushing my understanding.

EdwardLane (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Hello, EdwardLane. Good to see you here. Yes, indeed this is possible via the Schwarz-Christoffel transform, yielding a conformal projection. You could do it not conformally as well, but the benefit of a conformal projection here is that features along the edges (as well as anywhere else) have correct angles. This means that the graticule elements connect seamlessly when you tile hexes. Other methods normally would cause kinks in the graticule when they cross polygon edges. L.P. Lee wrote the standard explication, "Conformal Projections based on Elliptic Functions", about this topic, and demonstrates a conformal hexagon, among others. Strebe (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

 * thanks Strebe, reading the link now, can only find examples mapping to half hexagon so I guess I may need to get matlab going (heard of it but never tried it). EdwardLane (talk) 11:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

 * aha found it following a few links - the map I needed to start with was hans maurer's s233 projection - a 6 pointed star map, the S231, Lambert's azimuthal equal-area projection is a better projection but doesn't quite let me do the job I was trying. thanks Strebe you pointed me nicely in the right direction. EdwardLane (talk) 11:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Christopher Columbus
Hi Strebe!

I would like to know your thoughts on why Christopher Columbus is described as an "Italian" rather than a "Genoese". As far as I'm aware, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and does not intend to over simplify historical facts as blunt obvious as his nationality. If you were born in the 1450's in the "Italic peninsula", you weren't called an italian, but a Parmesan, Sardinian etc... Even though the term "Italian" isn't a modern word (you're right about that), it was only used to vaguely describe the different peoples in modern day Italy. The same goes for Castilian people for instance; El Cid is referred to a "Castilian" nobleman and not "Spanish", since the latter wouldn't become a nation until later on.

An example of what this should look like (in my mind): Ambrogio Spinola.

Many thanks for your patience! --Barbudo Barbudo (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

 * Hello -Barbudo Barbudo. First, to be clear, the “Italian” designation is a consensus, not my own thoughts. However, I am inclined to agree with the consensus. “Italy” is a concept, not a political entity. Even in Columbus’s day, a person would be designated “Italian” by non-Italians regardless of which city-state they were a citizen of. Also, the concept of “Italian” was much more durable than the sovereignty of the various city states. Over the course of decades, a particular region might change hands three times in the course of wars, cessions, or mergers. Hence, “Italian”, which is correct, is more flexible and meaningful in general to the modern reader. Since the same sentence declares Columbus’s citizenship as Genovese, it’s hard to see how or why someone might be confused, and easy to see how they would be more informed by the “Italian” designation. Also, this is the same treatment given to many contemporary figures. These same arguments hold for a designation as “German”, for example—a term that isn’t even German. Strebe (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that thoughtful answer! I agree with you now a bit more.

--Barbudo Barbudo (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Latitudinally equal-differential polyconic projection has been accepted
 Latitudinally equal-differential polyconic projection, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! SwisterTwister  talk  22:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Indirect quotation of NYT
Re : The reason I questioned the source is that the quotation is presented as originating from somewhere else, so on the face of it, it does not seem to be a valid source. Using it as a secondary source is fine, but we should be transparent about what we're doing; IMO the citation should say something like
 * New York Times (1943). Quoted in Snyder, John P. (1993). Flattening the earth: two thousand years of map projections. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-76746-9.

I know if I submitted an academic paper citing a book as a source of a quotation from a newspaper, it would be returned for corrections as the source would be manifestly incorrect. Hairy Dude (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

 * Thanks for all the corrections in these many articles I follow, Hairy Dude. I'm fine with your proposed amendment. Note, though, that Wikipedia is decidedly not like an academic paper. Secondary sources are preferred for the reasons cited in my edit summary. Using primary sources is kind of like original research and a lot like synthesizing. Strebe (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right. I wasn't even thinking about primary vs secondary sources. After a bit of thought I agree a secondary source is probably preferred. Hairy Dude (talk) 22:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Globe
Please explain your edit here. When Googling "oldest globe" the Erdapfel will invariably come up, yet it's pretty well established that it's not the oldest globe. This wouldn't matter if its earlier counterparts were only slightly older, but 1800 years or so is a lot. Prinsgezinde (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Your edit is not supported by the citations, neither on the Globe page nor on the Erdapfel page. The existing verbiage, "surviving", already implies older terrestrial globes may have been made; that suffices. Meanwhile, your use of the term "intact" implies that fragments of earlier globes exist. They don't, or if they do, you need to cite them. Strebe (talk) 20:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In the case of the image, this wouldn't be necessary. The image caption is—as usual—not sourced, but rather based on the section's content. On the Erdapfel article it's too simplified. History of cartography has a section "Earliest known maps" where the earliest maps are discussed. In the middle of the second section, it is briefly mentioned that the Babylonian World Map is the oldest surviving world map. This isn't mentioned on its own article because why would it be? It's not like many other objects where we think but don't really know of other earlier objects. We do know. Atlas Obscure finds it necessary to stress near the beginning that it's "far from the first globe ever created". Prinsgezinde (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

 * In the case of the image, this wouldn't be necessary. In the case of the image, your additions aren’t necessary. Captions aren’t for trivia; they need to get directly to the point, and that’s precisely where “surviving” fills all the needs in place of the pile of words you inserted—words that could confuse the reader into thinking globe fragments survive from earlier times. None do. It’s fine to add a short mention of earlier globes into Erdapfel, but it needs to be done properly, not as an awkward, unsourced parenthetical in the same sentence that introduces the Erdapfel! Strebe (talk) 01:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the informative response. But I don't see how noting that globes were made earlier than 1492 is "trivia". From WP:CAPTION: "Along with the title, the lead, and section headings, captions are the most commonly read words in an article, so they should be succinct and informative." If no history is mentioned in the lead then a quick glance will relay the wrong information. Why not have it be mentioned in the lead anyway? That would be more than adequate. History would likely interest most readers, and since the History section contains about half of the article's total prose I'd say that's also giving it due weight. I'm fine with your edit on the Erdapfel article. As long as the first line is something like "X is an Y" instead of "X is the most Z Y" (a bad habit on Wikipedia). Prinsgezinde (talk) 13:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

 * You continue to ignore that “surviving” already says, implicitly, that these artifacts were made before. Further, it does so succinctly. I don’t follow your objection to “X is the most Z Y”. Often the superlative is the reason the artifact or idea is noteworthy. Strebe (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

 * I would argue that it's typically better to first conceptualize the subject and then provide the important details (e.g. "Morgoth ... is a character from Tolkien's legendarium." and not "Morgoth ... is a character from Tolkien's legendarium that is main antagonist of The Silmarillion and The Children of Húrin, and is mentioned briefly in The Lord of the Rings.") so as to not overburden the reader, but I was more interested in your reaction to the second part of my reply. I suggested as an alternative approach to simply update the lead of Globe so that it mentions its history (including the Erdapfel). What about that? Prinsgezinde (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The Umbrellas

A tag has been placed on The Umbrellas requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ  13:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The Umbrellas (jazz ensemble)
Don't move DAB pages like you did here. It is against policy. Please receive consensus if you plan on moving a DAB page to make room for a topic which is not clearly the primary topic. Further, the sources you provided regarding the Umbrellas are very poor and unreliable, and don't do much to fight against the CSD that approved. You certainly had no right to chastise him. Anyway, try to follow WP policies when moving pages, and pay close attention to notability guidelines. Thanks. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ  15:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm going to explain again, User:El cid, el campeador, why your behavior drives away productive editors, and if you do not get it, then I have nothing more to say on the topic, and you’re not welcome on my Talk page.

 * I’m not interested your need to lord over people or to cite “policy” for destructive purposes. I also don’t care about your specious assertion that I have no right to “chastise”, particularly when chastising is the entire content of your posting here. Nobody knows all the policies, particularly people like me who have a life outside of Wikipedia. Rather than ordering people around, try a little moderation, a little courtesy, and a presumption of good intent—just like Wikipedia requires you to.

 * Meanwhile the rules for disambiguation pages are not nearly as clear-cut as you’re making them out to be. What I did seemed uncontroversial to me, given that there is no other article of the same name, and none of what I read over the voluminous instructions for disambiguation pages obviously contradicted me. I had no agenda beyond disambiguating the disambiguation page.

 * You conveniently ignored my complaint about the abuse of speedy deletion, where the stated intent is that it be used for articles unlikely to survive review. You did abuse that, and I do have the “right” to “chastise” you for it—at least as much right as you have to “chastise”, which is pretty much •all• you have done here. There was no emergency to delete that page. It’s possible (though not probable) that the topic would not survive, and that would not bother me, but the destructive urge you demonstrate by not even affording reasonable notice, giving time to determine whether it could be salvaged, treating the article like it’s a liability to Wikipedia, and now lashing out when someone takes you to task for your aggressiveness, speaks volumes of your motives. If you don’t intend for your behavior to be seen this way, then consider changing your behavior, and if you don’t care if your behavior is seen this way, then you get what you deserve and I don’t care about your complaints.

 * And then you go on about “very poor and unreliable” sources. What’s “very poor and unreliable” are your opinions about the sources. If you want to discuss their reliability and offer some evidence that they are poor and unreliable, then we might be off to some sort of useful conversation. As written, your opinions appear to be hyperbole and based on… nothing much.

 * It’s particularly amusing to see you refer to cited verbiage in your edit as “puffery” simply because it is complimentary, while you were happy to leave less complimentary verbiage. Puffery would be an editor writing those words “himself”, or the subject of the topic referring to his own stuff that way. What’s puffery is your handle mark-up.

 * Meanwhile, thank you for your improvements to the article. Strebe (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

 * I would love to know how much time you spent writing that instead of doing something productive. Anyway, I'm not reading it. Cheers ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  20:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

 * Just the sort of response I’d expect from someone who cannot bear to face criticism for their own behavior. Strebe (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Map external links
I thought the external links on Map were particularly useful, and your deletions a retrograde step. Can we discuss? Cheers,  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  08:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello User:Tony Holkham. Thanks for your note. My concern is that there is no end to sites hosting map collections. It was growing into a haphazard collection of links to things people could easily find themselves doing a Web search. Wikipedia guidelines are not rigid in this regard, but some things to consider about these map collection sites are:
 * How important is the site in the universe of sites hosting map collections?
 * How was that importance assessed?
 * How much duplication of useful information does linking to Site B yield when compared to Site A?
 * Is the site reliable?
 * Does the site require third-party extensions to view it, in violation of WP:LINKSTOAVOID #8?
 * None of these questions were addressed in the haphazard inclusion into the external links section. Some of the sites clearly require extensions to view. Also consider this, from WP:External links: Some external links are welcome, but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link. WP:NOTLINKFARM also contains relevant notes. I think a better method here would be to provide a link to a reliable, curated site that provides links to active map collections. Thoughts? Strebe (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't consider any other links when I added the National Library of Scotland, and your points are well-made. However, I (not everyone, I know) support WP as THE primary source for information, and external links are a fundamental part of this. I think the NLS is worthy of inclusion, as least as much as the Library of Congress, because it is a reliable and helpful source to historians and geographers alike. Yes, the link is available in the NLS article, but who would look there when searching for links to old maps of England or Wales? I don't feel THAT strongly about this (neither a slave to guidelines), but would like to see that link, and that for the British Library, reinstated. Both are reliable and neither requires extensions. Regards,  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  20:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this conversation should get moved to Talk:Map, since we seem to be actively debating what belongs in the article. For my own part, I do not see enough benefit in including every country’s (or any arbitrary subset thereof) national archives to justify overriding the guidelines on external links (or their usability). The Library of Congress houses the largest collection of maps in the world, which argues for it being the representative sample. The British Library collection is a substantial fraction of LOC’s count, but few other institutions come close. The overlap between the British Library and the LOC must be enormous, and the LOC probably contains most of the material of practically any other library. Not that I am arguing there must be only one link. Rather, I am arguing that, once we deviate from “most complete”, then whatever criteria we use to keep the list short will be arbitrary, subject to endless haggling, and probably not terribly useful to the typical reader. One thing we should do is link to the Map collection article, which I just now discovered. Strebe (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of Map collection either. That changes things.  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  21:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've copied this discussion to Talk:Map.  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  22:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Hobbit - Third Age
I appreciate your points about the chronology - but don't really understand why you removed the link to Third Age - we are not writing the article from the point of view of 1937 - in the full fictional universe the Hobbit is set in the Third Age - it seems a sensible link.
 * Given the convoluted evolution of Tolkien's universe, we need to be careful how we present it to the reader. It is not proper to state in the lede that The Hobbit is set in the Third Age of Middle Earth because... it wasn't. Those concepts grew up around it. As a stand-alone story, The Hobbit does not necessarily benefit from references to that broader legendarium, and when we do talk about them, we ought to explain how they relate. Strebe (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Also in the facsimile of first edition the text states (exactly) "The period is the ancient time between the age of Faerie and the dominion of men" - I assume this is correct (as a facsimile)
 * Thank you! Strebe (talk) 21:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I will change the second quote and give the source, and the leave the first explanation of how the book fits into Tolkien's later creation to your judgment - though I see you have already explained that in the "setting" section.

[edited once] Xoool (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

 * btw the original price was 7s6d - I wonder if this is encyclopedic information ? Xoool (talk) 21:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. :-) Strebe (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Supposed "vandalism" at Christopher Columbus
While I would like to thank you for adding a citation to support the uncited statement that I removed from the article Christopher Columbus, I nonetheless feel compelled to strongly object to your accusation that my removal of that statement was "vandalism." Merriam Webster defines "vandalism" as "willful or malicious destruction or defacement of public or private property." Our article vandalism defines "vandalism" as an "action involving deliberate destruction of or damage to public or private property". Our policy article Vandalism defines "vandalism" as "editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge." By its very definition, vandalism is always done with deliberate, malicious intent; it is never accidental and it is never done in good faith. When you accuse me of "vandalism," you are equating me with people who remove all content from whole articles and replace them with obscenities typed in all caps. I hope you understand how that is offensive and a grossly inaccurate mischaracterization of what I did. You may believe that my removal of that statement was unjustified or that it was unconstructive, but it certainly was not vandalism.

I removed that statement because it had been tagged as uncited for three years and, according to policy, all information in our articles is supposed to be cited to reliable sources. Verifiability clearly and explicitly states: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." My actions were entirely in line with even the most relentlessly bureaucratic interpretation of that policy imaginable. You are welcome to believe that my removal of that statement was unjustified or unproductive, but I was acting entirely in good faith and I would strongly admonish you against accusing people of vandalism when they are clearly trying to be helpful and constructive. --Katolophyromai (talk) 05:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

 * I didn’t question your right to delete that material, Katolophyromai. I questioned your motive. If you have some narrative you tell yourself about how what you do helps, then knock yourself out: Delete stuff just because you have the power to. Or, you know, make things better. You could have added that citation just as easily as anyone else. You just can’t be bothered. Strebe (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed that statement for precisely the reason I explained in my edit summary and in my response above; I was not "delet[ing] stuff just because [I] have the power to" and I have no idea what would give you such a cynical impression. Do you seriously believe that other editors are secretly motivated by a deep-seated malicious desire to destroy everything? --Katolophyromai (talk) 10:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

 * I removed that statement for precisely the reason I explained…
 * No, User:Katolophyromai, you gave no explanation for the reason you deleted important, correct, uncontroversial, easily verified material. The rules did not require you to delete anything; they only gave you the right to. They also, by the way, gave you the right to cite instead of deleting.
 * Do you seriously believe that other editors are secretly motivated by a deep-seated malicious desire to destroy everything?
 * Of course not. I do, however, think the results become indistinguishable from vandalism when an editor chooses to enact the laziest, pedantic right that the rules give them instead of asking themselves the most basic question of, “Would deleting this improve Wikipedia?” And, by the way, if the answer is, “I’m not sure”, then I’d suggest just leaving it alone. Strebe (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Window function
Thanks for your work on this. But to make it better, it would be great to move the more detailed application description into an applications section, and reference a source. You might want to add a new section under Applications if you don't see one that fits what you're describing. But if you don't cite a source, it might not last. It sounds to me like your description is related to Short-time Fourier transform, so link that, which currently only shows up in the See also section and a ref. Dicklyon (talk) 03:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't care about what I wrote specifically. What I care about is that the lede is deprived of meaning for someone who doesn't already know what a window function is for, how it is used, and why. I gave a detailed example, called it an example, and I doubt it would be taken to be the sole example by most people who read the word example. The so-called "applications" later in the article lists domains in which window functions are used, not what window functions accomplish or why they are needed there. The whole article is written for people who already know what a window function is. It's just not useful. I would thank you to either restore what I wrote or write something everyone approves of better that fulfills the need of people who are trying to figure out what this window function thing is for. The lede as it was fulfilled practically no purpose of a lede. And really, this should have been addressed in the article's talk page, not here. Strebe (talk) 04:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, please do take it to the article talk page. I'm sure something can be worked out for the lead. Dicklyon (talk) 01:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

RE: Umami
Thanks for noticing that. The link was briefly redirecting to via a junk page, a user reported it and I verified the problem. It seems fine now though. -- Krenair (talk • contribs) 23:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

"Useless Pedantry"
Language of that sort is unnecessarily provocative. Please assume good faith.

A fact is "a thing that is known or proved to be true". It is known that the Earth is not a sphere, so the sphericity of the Earth is not a fact, but an idea or concept, and the article Spherical Earth is not about a fact, but about an idea. 95.147.15.231 (talk) 00:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My justification has nothing to do with the intent of the edit. The earth is not a sphere; it is not an ellipsoid; it is not a geoid. It is just the earth, but it is a fact that it is a sphere to a high degree of accuracy, and its deviation from a sphere is inconsequential to the description of the article. Hence, “useless pedantry”. Strebe (talk) 03:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Consider the first three paragraphs of the article. The Spherical Earth is referred to twice as a concept, and mention is made both of the Flat Earth concept that it replaced, and the Geoid Earth concept that has largely replaced it. "The Earth is not a sphere": the article is therefore not about a fact, but about a theory, concept, or idea, and the Earth's deviation from spherical is explicitly discussed. There are other articles about the true form of the Earth. My edit made the article description slightly more accurate, more consistent with the body of the article, and is therefore a slight improvement. There is no good justification to revert an article to a less accurate version, even if you feel that the improvement is small.95.147.15.231 (talk) 10:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m copying this over to the Spherical Earth page, where it belongs. Strebe (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for improvement of Oblique Mercator projection
Thanks for improvement of Oblique Mercator projection. I updated Wikidata page about you. Would you upload a map of Gall isographic projection? --Sharouser (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

 * Done. Thanks for the Wikidata page work. Strebe (talk) 00:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you upload Eckert-Greifendorff projection, Winkel I and Winkel II too? --Sharouser (talk) 02:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Collignon projection
I think I may have confused you by making two edits in succession, and you may have only read the summary on the second one. The first edit's summary was "formula was different between sources, standardize on the one from Snyder since that's what the rest of Wikipedia uses". I removed the reference because it didn't seem to be describing the same projection, and I didn't want to make things more confusing. The typos were the ones I made in the LaTeX in the first edit. I was the one who added the reference I removed: I'm just trying to fix my own mistakes here.-Apocheir (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks; that makes sense. The Melluish reference is better, though; it is more general. Snyder's version is not adjustable. the Melluish formulae are equivalent to Snyder's for a particular b and c. Strebe (talk) 21:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry for causing trouble on the Globe page. I hope you forgive me. I will soon change my IP address. Good day/night to you. And please know that I was not trying to cause problems. I should have checked the edit history. Again, good day/night to you. 24.45.162.146 (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Two-point equidistant projection
Do you have a reference for the last sentence of Two-point equidistant projection? That sentence currently has a CN tag. I think it might be in Snyder's Flattening the Earth, but Google Books won't show me the relevant pages. -Apocheir (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

DRN
You have to continue working to get consensus. I’ve filed Dispute resolution noticeboard.—Jasper Deng (talk) 03:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I have a doubt about Tolkien's world
Are the branch of the Noldor elves more powerful than the Vanyar? SmithGraves (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of English-language editions of The Hobbit

The article English-language editions of The Hobbit has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: This page cites no sources. Though there are reliable sources available that discuss the publication history of The Hobbit, none of them cover individual editions to this level of granularity. This seems like original research compiled from many uncited sources.

Moreover, the publication history of The Hobbit is already covered in The Hobbit.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BenKuykendall (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Translations of The Hobbit

The article Translations of The Hobbit has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "This is indiscriminate data, almost all of which is uncited. There is no claim to notability. The general publication and translation history of The Hobbit is of interest, but it is better covered in The Hobbit."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BenKuykendall (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Spherical Earth
Why don't you simply ask for a clarification, instead of reverting? --PostaDiDonna (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Why don’t you explain your edits, rather than deleting a lot with no explanation? Strebe (talk) 04:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

 * I've explained all of them, I missed a few. What is your explanation for reverting? --PostaDiDonna (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

 * It feels eerie having to explain something so obvious. But: *I* don’t know what you did. I am not you. I don’t stalk you. I don’t follow your edits. You deleted material from an article I watch. It looked like vandalism. Obviously I don’t go onto the Talk page and discuss reversions to vandalism, and I really doubt you do, either. If you cannot understand what your edit looked like to other people, and if your pride has you convinced that anyone reverting your precious edits has insulted you, no matter how negligent you were, then just go away and stop wasting my time even if you don’t care about your own time. Strebe (talk) 06:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Silly me for thinking you cared about collaboration, it was a waste of my time. --PostaDiDonna (talk) 12:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

 * You really need to work on how you express your desire to collaborate. Strebe (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:HobbitTwelfthImpLastPageMeasure.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:HobbitTwelfthImpLastPageMeasure.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Columbus
Can you point me to the discussion where you say consensus was reached that Columbus is Italian? I searched the archives of the talk page, and while I did find a lot of people pointing out that "Genoese" would be more appropriate, I did not see an actual discussion which established that "Italian" should be used. If you could post that link I would appreciate it. JimKaatFan (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Please see almost every Talk page archive from #7 onward, particularly #8. Almost all of them have people rehashing the matter (though it’s also often quickly derailed by the fringe folk wanting to claim he wasn’t even Genovese). I am not aware that there was ever an RFD on the matter; the editors most involved for the longest term have retained the longstanding designation of Columbus as an Italian due to the overwhelming presence of “Italian” as the primary, first, or introductory comments about Columbus’s identity among reliable sources. The article does not claim that Columbus’s citizenship was Italian; it clearly states Republic of Genoa. Strebe (talk) 03:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If that's true, then the first sentence shouldn't state he was Italian either. Similar to Nicolaus Copernicus, no nationality is given because it's so nebulous. What's wrong with just doing that? JimKaatFan (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Calling Columbus Italian is not the same as calling his nationality Italian. Meanwhile Leonardo da Vinci, Botacelli, the de Medicis, and myriad others are introduced as Italians on their pages. If you want to discuss this, please use the Talk:Christopher Columbus page, where other concerned parties can join in. The sources, however, say Italian, so I doubt that’s going to get anywhere. Copernicus, meanwhile, is not terribly analogous. Strebe (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Flat Earth
One of the major misconceptions with flat earth theorists is that older civilizations used to believe in the idea wholesale. so saying "Many ancient cultures subscribed to a flat Earth cosmography" gives their unfounded stance more support. Although you might see it as minor, I would like to find a way to clearify the language so it doesn't come off as "all civilizations" I have attempted this twice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YukoValis (talk • contribs) 20:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Your comment here differs from the intent of the changes you made that I reverted. Are you talking about “all civilization” or are you talking about “all members of any particular civilization”? Either way, I still do not understand your point. “Many ancient cultures subscribed to a flat Earth cosmography” does not say, or mean, or imply, “all civilizations” It lucidly does not mean “all civilizations”. If you intend to pursue this conversation, please take it to the Talk:Flat Earth page, where any interested editor can participate. Strebe (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit new at editing. So I would prefer a more experienced person start that kind of topic if you would be so kind.  My intentions are still trying to say only parts of a civilization believed in the flat earth theory.  "Many ancient cultures subscribed to a flat Earth" tells me those cultures believed this theory in the majority of their people.  My change "Many ancient cultures had subscribers to a flat Earth cosmography theory" still keeps the multiple cultures, but doesn't make it seem like everyone bought into it.  If you could word it better yourself I would appreciate your insight.
 * I disagree that you have identified a problem to fix, so I do not want to initiate that conversation on the Talk page. To say that “a culture believes such-and-such” never means that every member of the culture believes such-and-such. As a simple matter of editorial practice, we don’t add caveats and qualifications to sentences that already, conventionally and implicitly, mean what is intended. None of the cited sources add such awkward, unnecessary caveats, and I disagree that a reasonable reader would take “a culture believes such-and-such” to mean that every member of that culture believes it. Strebe (talk) 04:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Mercator
Thanks for patching up my awkward edits. Uchyotka (talk) 05:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Mercator video
I'm no expert on map projection but the has raised an interesting question; the video is on equivalent German pages, and of course is a high (visual) quality output. Nevertheless this isn't the only video they've released where the content is rather questionable. I'm guessing it would be hard to 'correct' it given it shows the projection being done in a way you think isn't right. If however the voice and text can be corrected, you should let people know, I think, so this can be done, via the file(s) at commons:Category:Videos by Terra X. Either way, if it is factually wrong this should be flagged on the video talk page so it can be dealt with in some way and not perhaps reused indiscriminately. Jim Killock (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s something of an embarrassment that this material keeps coming out of Germany. The Bundespost issued a stamp with this same problem. I will look into reporting this to the authors when I get time. Thanks for the note, Jim Killock. Strebe (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, I have done a cut of the video without audio and without the offending section, which is here: commons:File:World Map by Geradus Mercator CC-By.mpg. This could be rescripted, and redubbed, do you think you could help? I will add subs as a baseline to show how much text is needed (not a lot). Jim Killock (talk) 12:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The script file for editing is here: commons:TimedText:World_Map_by_Geradus_Mercator_CC-By.mpg.en.srt

Grammatical errors
"Columbus had always claimed the conversion of non-believers as one reason for his explorations, but he grew increasingly religious in his later years."

If he claimed his prior missions were for the purpose of converting non-believers, that's a very religious claim, so the "but" is completely unnecessary and confuses readers. You might debate my fix of "Columbus had always claimed the conversion of non-believers as one reason for his explorations, in his later years, he became even more religious.", sure do it. It might have mistakes, removing "but" isn't one of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Columbus&diff=964266557&oldid=964223066

 *  It might have mistakes, removing "but" isn't one of them. You have another comma splice there. Adding “but” after “mistake” would make it right. Perhaps you dislike “but”.

 * Back to the article, if you object to “but” (which I did not write) then please find a coherent way to restructure the sentence. There is nothing wrong with it as it is, though: “but” does not solely mean “to the contrary”. Strebe (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

An appeal
Why did you even edit war with me there? I disputed a simple term, which had no supporting evidence. I took it to the talk page. Why can you not just act civilly like most and show evidence and we could together craft an accurate account of the explorer's expertise and experiences? The edit warring and personal attacks have made me upset, and prompted a lot of stress, time wasted, and not really anything to show for it. Please, next time, work with other editors on things like this. I've only been wanting to get to the bottom of it, without showing a significantly bold claim, unexplained and with only a single tertiary source. Please if you'd like to calmly work with me further on this, I'd like to without all the hostilities. ɱ (talk) 02:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

 * , while it may be hard for you to grasp, I find your style of engagement to be every bit as offensive, uncivil, and upsetting as you seem to find my bluntness. Your protestations of “I just wanted to…” of course mirror my own wishes, but the list of your offensive behavior that I gave ought to abundantly explain why I have a problem with the situation. I understand you may not be accustomed to being called out on your sophistry. When I say you “lie”, it’s not because we have a difference of opinion; it’s because you state things you know to be false. That is lying. That’s not “a difference of opinion” to “agree to disagree about”. When I say you’ve been a hypocrite, it’s because you’re taking privileges that you are unwilling to allow others: “let’s talk” but reverting to get your way while complaining about other people exercising the same right to revert. I’m sorry you’ve reached whatever age you’ve reached finding it acceptable to do these things. And so, presented with this sort of behavior, I see no hope of working with you to do the right thing for the article because I see no evidence that your motives are in service of the article. Instead, they seem to be in service of getting your way. Strebe (talk) 03:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not even reading that big wall of nasty text, I stopped at the first accusations. You are an embarrassment to the project and you should consider taking your efforts elsewhere. ɱ (talk) 03:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Marco Polo's nationality
Hi! I saw that you are discussing about Christopher Columbus' nationality (Italian or Genoese). Well, there's a similar discussion about Marco Polo on the Talk page. Can you take a look too? BorisBradley (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

de Cuneo
When I first saw that edit, I also thought it was vandalism - it's too close to a vulgarity in spanish. But it does seem to be correct, see the spelling in Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Christopher-Columbus/The-second-and-third-voyages Tarl N. ( discuss ) 05:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Interesting how the “de Cueno” solecism has propagated across the Web. But yes, “de Cuneo” is much better attested. Strebe (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:GENESIS? Tarl N. ( discuss ) 19:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

UTM short description
Thank you, I thought when I was deriving it from the existing lead that it wasn't very convincing but didn't have time to work out what was wrong with it. I was focused on getting the See also at What3Words into something useful. (I have just come across annotated link, which is much more useful to visitors than a plain list.) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

 * John Maynard Friedman, many thanks for making an edit that called my attention to the textual problem. Your summary was faithful to the text. But the text was a problem! Strebe (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

About anomalous magnetic moment
Dear Dr. Strebe,

Could You look the article. Somebody wants to delete my addition.

User

EfimovSP (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Citrus
Can we end this by adding the word "category" to my text? There is no real debate here. is commonly used and you have – reluctantly – demonstrated that you did understand it.

The only real dispute here is the semantics of citrus. You're being unpleasant in a semantic debate. I asked if you understand English sufficiently because that was the most generous way I could say it. I thought you did and therefore my real impression was that you were reverting unnecessarily. Asking about language competency was the most indirect way I could defuse the problem. I suggest reconsidering whether insulting me until I guess what you want is worth my time and whether it is worth yours.Invasive Spices (talk) 20 May 2022 (UTC)

 * The only real dispute here is the semantics of citrus. It’s not. Adding the word “category” solves nothing. With this new proposal, the reader is left wondering, “Okay, citrus comprises the largest category, but what are the other categories? Why is it useful to compare categories? How many categories are there? What category is a lychee in? What about a mango? What category is an apple in?” The comparison isn’t against anything identifiable, which means it’s not a useful comparison. It’s just a factoid bereft of context. Maybe that context is in the article you quoted; I don’t know, but unless that context makes it into the article, it’s not context for the article. If, instead, you had a figure for what fraction of the global fruit trade citrus comprises, suddenly the reader has some information. The comparison would be against something identifiable.

 * There is no real debate here. Do you understand that this is an arrogant, dismissive, and ultimately false claim?

 * you have – reluctantly – demonstrated that you did understand it. This is another arrogant, dismissive, and ultimately false claim. I do not, as far I as can tell, understand whatever it is you are claiming I understood. I don’t understand the article edit you made for exactly reasons I gave in my reversion explanation, my multiple explanations on the Talk page, and now the explanation above on why adding “category” does not solve the problem.

 * As for your complaints, I just don’t have time. Go look a mirror if you’re worried about unpleasantness and who started what. Wikipedia has some fairly simple rules about Talk page exchanges that can be easily summarized as “Stick to what will improve the article.” Thinking you’re clever “defusing” a non-existent “problem” by asking irrelevant personal questions does not adhere to that simple rule, and neither does the rest of what you did until I had to practically cudgel you into asking your questions. Even then you couldn’t resist throwing in uncivil jabs, insinuations, and a blatant falsehood. Strebe (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Columbus revert
Hi Strebe, in your revert you say "see talk", but maybe you are confused as we seem to be in agreement there... My first edit was removing Italian nationality and adding Republic of Genoa as his homeland, while my last edit was meant to remove repeating 'Republic of Genoa' twice in a row. I figured we can just add 'Italian coast' because he indeed grew up on the coast of the Italian peninsula, but we don't know in which towns exactly. That it also appeals to those who want something 'Italian' in the lead is of secondary importance (but at the same time might bring some stability to the page).Machinarium (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

 * Sorry about my hasty reversion. I didn’t consider the context. I think you’re right, but I worry about more objections. What do you think of “on what is now the northwestern Italian coast”? Strebe (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * np. I imagine the addition of 'on what is now' will cause similar problems because the Italian peninsula already had its name since antiquity iirc. So I'd say 'Italian coast' with a link to the peninsula page, or 'coast of the Italian peninsula'? Machinarium (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Since “on what is now” is inarguably true, and is readily understood by any reader, it seems to me as if it’s the least controversial thing to say. Like you, I have no confidence that someone won’t be offended, given how frequently and heatedly this topic comes up. Still, the purpose of that sentence is to point out that Columbus grew up along the Italian coast in a hotspot of marine activity, so what it was called then or now doesn’t seem important to me; what’s important is that the modern reader (who may not know where or even what Genoa is) has the highest chance of understanding the context and lowest chance of objecting. Strebe (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

 * }
 * You were right, first offended Italian has already entered the arena... Machinarium (talk) 10:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

How was Thomas Paine influenced by "Jacobin"
He was Girondin, and should at least be spealt as Jacobinism. StrongALPHA (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don’t have any quibble with that, but we’re not even supposed to be using those template parameters, it turns out. Strebe (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * But was wrong with the template it says philosopher at the top of his Infobox? StrongALPHA (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry; I don’t understand this question. Strebe (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "but we’re not even supposed to be using those template parameters", his Infobox is as a philosopher, every other Infobox that has philosopher in the title also has a list of Influences and people Influenced, why are we no longer using these parameters, if for every other philosopher they remain, also i could not find any justification for your recent change in the link you put out? StrongALPHA (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The linked article states:
 * DEPRECATED: Influences: DEPRECATED and unused in the infobox. Do not use.
 * DEPRECATED: Influenced: DEPRECATED and unused in the infobox. Do not use.
 * However, as you point out, the template is for philosophers, not persons. I see that the page describing philosopher infobox does not say that. Instead, it says with regard to both “influenced” and “influences”:
 * “only add entries which are explained and cited in the body of the article (or cited here)”
 * So, to do this correctly, we need to delete anything entries that are not cited in the article. Strebe (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Very well, but this is a rule that is not taken particularly seriously by Wikipedians. I will not change anything to the article because you police it, but on other articles on philosophers, there are plenty of references within the Infobox and random adding of names. StrongALPHA (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The reason I asked you this question anyways, is because when several months ago I deleted mention of "Jacobin" as an influence on him you reverted it immediately afterwards. StrongALPHA (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Contacting by other means
Hello,

Just stumbled upon a quote while doing a literature review that reminded me of the conversation. Pardon that it is a Monmonier quote.

In his paper "Lying with Maps" he is a lot clearer on the matter of choropleths and totals then in his book: "Whenever a map of count data makes sense, perhaps to place a map of rates in perspective, graphic theory condemns using a choropleth map because its ink (or toner) metaphor is misleading. Graytone area symbols, whereby darker suggests “denser” or “more intense” while lighter implies “more dispersed” or “less intense,” are wholly inappropriate for count data, which are much better served by symbols that vary in size to portray differences in magnitude (Bertin, 1983). In other words, while rate data mesh nicely with the choropleth map’s darker-means-more rule, count data require bigger-means-more coding"

Anyway, I'm trying to think about putting together a taskforce for the maps WikiProject to address misleading cartography within Wikipedia. While it is currently in the idea phase rather then implementation, you're knowledge of projections would be fantastic for trying to set criteria for projections. Again, just saw this in review and thought it was a clear and reputable statement to include in such a taskforce. Back to work for me or my advisor will have my head. GeogSage ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 04:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Universal Transverse Mercator coordinate system
Now you have reverted my edit on Universal Transverse Mercator coordinate system, I hope that you can correct the offending link to the correct one. The Banner talk 22:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Richer and Newton
Hello.

I saw your deleting on the page "Earth ellipsoid".

You certainly may know that Richer's observations in french Guiana in 1672-1673 are the first datas to confirm the theories about the non spherical shape of the earth. Newton always quoted these datas to publish his principia :

https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2022/11/how-newton-derived-the-shape-of-earth.html

https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Richer/

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/premium/article/perilous-17th-century-french-journey-find-distance-to-sun-cassini-richer

https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/jean-richer

So, I think it is fair to put this on Wikipedia.

What do you think ? Frefar (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello Frefar. Thanks for your comments. I agree that the information is important and belongs on Wikipedia. I just don’t think that was the right place for it. History of geodesy is a perfect fit. Strebe (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! I'll check it. Frefar (talk) 02:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

title: User talk:Strebe