User talk:Elphion

(Saved here against the article being deleted.)

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

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

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

146097 days ÷ 400 years = 365.2425 days per Gregorian year

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey,

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

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

Thanks!

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

var gif64 = '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'

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

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

It's hard to debug without the code in hand, of course! I would look at the following:

(1) 8-bit data must be encoded as 9-bit codes. I.e., not only is the clear code 9 bits, the data "bytes" must be 9-bit codes as well.

(2) The significant advantage of 7-bit data (8-bit codes) is that they fit naturally into bytes. 8-bit data (9-bit codes) must be packed into bytes using LSB packing. Each 9-bit code will span a byte boundary somewhere.

(3) But the data stream of packed bytes must be broken on byte boundaries into sub-blocks (what I think you call chunks). This includes the clear codes. Thus, the (clear + data) groups likely will not fall on sub-block boundaries. You cannot pad sub-blocks with zero bits; you must form the continuous stream of clear and data bits (9 bits per code), pack those bits into bytes, and then divide the bytes into sub-blocks.

(4) You mention clear code + 32 data bytes. If you mean clear code + 32 data codes, that's (1 code + 32 codes)*9 bits/code = 33*9 bits = 297 bits = 37 bytes + 1 bit. To make the codes come out on a byte boundary try (clear code + 31 data codes): 32*9 = 288 bits = 36 bytes + no extra bits.

Hope that helps! -- Elphion (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! It does. I did some extended debugging, and found my problem was I had negligently dropped the 0x02C image descriptor byte. Once I added that, it worked as expected (pointless prototype). Again, thanks for posting the working example and details as I do not think I would've resolved it otherwise.

Appreciate the info on the 9-bit encoding, as I would've been doing it wrong. Will give that a try next. You sir, are a hero of the GIF format. Разрывные (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

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

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

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

I reverted it because it seems on its face unlikely, given the dictionary etymologies; because it is completely unsourced; and because it is presented in terms that make it clear that it is merely the hunch of an editor. WP has a policy against including such material, see WP:OR and WP:VERIFY. To include it, you must locate and cite a reliable source (WP:RS).

Part of what's missing here is any indication of the time-frame of the appearance of the Persian system and the Persian word, as well as any indication that Europeans were aware of either when early postal systems were being developed. The concept is not exactly arcane, and given the early appearance of the word in Europe, it seems just as likely (from the evidence presented) that the idea arose independently, or even that the Persians borrowed the word from Europe. You need some real historical evidence to back this claim up.

-- Elphion (talk) 12:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I think I stated as such - that it is unsourced. Yet, to me the unlikeness of it merely being a coincidence that the literal meaning of the Parsi word "post" is exactly how the worldwide postal services have been organized over the centuries, convince me that that so-called coincidence should at least be mentioned in an encyclopedia which aims to distinguish itself. The parallels are so obvious that it is beyond "hunch", but still unsourced. I'll give you that, we'll have Wikipedia re-chew common opinion and I'll rest my case here.

6th Common Sense (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I see the claim of Persian origin has already been removed from Post office, for the same reason. And while there, I saw that you had removed Farley's name from his famous quote. He might have gotten it from Herodotus, but if so, you should provide a citation to the relevant passage in Herodotus -- and in any event, the association with Farley needs to be preserved because he's the one who made it famous. (Added:) The source from Herodotus could have been supplied by linking to United States Postal Service creed, where this is discussed. I have added such a link. That article makes clear that Herodotus, and therefore Europe, was aware of the Achaemenid system; but it says nothing about the etymology of "post". Can you supply a source that attests the age of the Persian word, or that it was known in Europe? -- Elphion (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

This I do not agree with. It is not because somebody made a quote more famous, that it should be him getting the credit for it. When people look up the James Farley building, perhaps wondering where that quote comes from, it does not suffice saying: the building's architect made it famous. That's circular reasoning. It's like saying that Shakespeare's "To be or not to be" is actually from Beast Wars: Transformers because that is the "modern" reference. I go a bit far with the analogy, but correct.

6th Common Sense (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Your analogy rather misses the mark. Farley was not the architect, he was the Postmaster General who adopted the phrase as the motto for the USPS. The quote is on the building not in memory of Herodotus, but to honor Farley. I have nothing against mentioning Herodotus (and I was surprised that you deleted the link that made the connection clearer), but Herodotus is not why the quote is there. As far as "post" is concerned, I'm open to the possibility of a Persian connection, but you need to find a source. Linguistic coincidences like that are common, and even have their own term (folk etymology). The resemblance of the Persian and developing European systems is not as great as you make it out to be ("post", e.g., does not imply a return response in European systems), and the conclusion you've drawn is by no means the only one possible. The point is, it needs to be backed up with expert sources. -- Elphion (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

All fees for post were, until 1986 when the UPU created "transit charges", paid in the sender's country. The destination country was left with the expensive and time-intensive distribution of mail free of charge. They'd only get paid when a return message was posted. In modern times, the inbalance between a rich country literally sending tons of mail towards third-worlds while only kilos returned, was unsustainable for the latter. Hence the 1986 implementation.

BTW. Maybe "my" pointing out of the analogy between the Persian word and its implementation is Lexicology more than folk etymology? Anyhows.

6th Common Sense (talk) 09:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Certainly Christian at the time, but as the hatnote at Unitarianism points out, it's no longer explicitly so. Modern Unitarianism views the Edict of Torda as a defining moment in the movement, which pushed it eventually to transcend Christianity. Categorizing the article in Category:History of Christianity in Romania (or indeed Category:History of Christianity in Hungary, which I overlooked) is not wrong, but I think too limited, and misses the edict's continuing influence. What's really needed, I guess, is Category:Unitarianism. -- Elphion (talk) 12:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• Unitarianism starts with a disambiguator, it says this article is about

historical Unitarianism as a Christian theology which includes a belief in God and his unitary nature

while on the other hand there is an article about

the UU Church which began in 1961, and which holds no specific creeds concerning Christianity, God, or God's unitary nature.

So it seems that up to 1961 the Unitarians regarded themselves as Christians. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Meanwhile I've read the article until the end. It seems like there's a whole lot of Christian Unitarian organizations still existing, according to the paragraph Modern Christian Unitarian organizations. While, apart from the UU Church in 1961, there isn't any year or era mentioned in which a farewell from Christianity would have taken place. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, many Unitarians call themselves Christian, but most of those (since the beginning of the Reformation, tapping into older heresies dating back to the 2nd century) don't believe that Christ is divine. Hence many Christian churches don't regard Unitarians as Christian. Indeed, in 16th-century Transylvania, Francis David jeopardized the religious tolerance granted to Unitarians by insisting too assiduously on the non-divinity of Christ. Since the early 19th century and the Transcendentalists like Ralph Waldo Emerson, both Unitarians and Universalists have turned away from formal dogma altogether; and while many Unitarians consider themselves Christian, there are (and have been) many who do not. ("Unitarians believe in at most one god" is the old witticism.) So characterizing "Unitarianism" as "Christian", then or now, is not entirely accurate. -- Elphion (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

OK so then it becomes a POV issue. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

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

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thanks for correcting my wrongly identified peaks! RO(talk) 15:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Just trying to be helpful ... -- Elphion (talk) 16:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Your edits were very helpful. So, do you know them all by heart, or are you just good at map reading; or is it a little of both? RO^(talk) 17:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much all by heart, especially the Front Range and the Mummy Range -- I've been hiking there since I was a little tyke (climbed Longs Peak with my Dad at the age of 9). -- Elphion (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow. That's very cool. I love hiking in the Rockies, but I've never gotten enough nerve up to try anything that challenging/dangerous. I'm more of an endurance hiker. I conquered Barrier Canyon in July, and it was 106 degrees in Moab that day! Longs was recently named one of the world's 20 most dangerous hikes: (), so that's pretty impressive for a 9-year-old! Have you returned to the top since? RO^(talk) 18:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I've been to the summit 7 times, and had to turn back several more times due to weather (once being sleeted on at Homestretch, sheesh). The first time was the best though: clear and cloudless -- we could see Pike's Peak in the distance. The usual route up the Trough is not technical, but I'm not entirely surprised it's considered dangerous. The weather is always iffy, of course, and there are places where you have to be careful to avoid falling. It's a strenuous hike, even if not technical: we've shepherded college guys down who poop out at the top. Then too, the Trough itself has become noticeably slipperier over the years, as places get worn smooth due to all the traffic. And on a good day, there is lots of traffic! -- Elphion (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

How exciting! Which peaks would you recommend for newbies? I always wanted to climb a 14er, but I had better start with one much easier. Are any of the 14ers easy? RO^(talk) 19:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Longs is the only 14er I've been up, since I focus mainly on RMNP. But check out 14ers.com and 5280 Magazine. -- Elphion (talk) 19:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

You know, I've been to RMNP several times, but I never realized Longs was just 181 feet shy of the tallest peak in the Rockies! And I didn't know most of the peak's names until a few days ago, so thanks for teaching me! RO^(talk) 23:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fixed -- Elphion (talk) 15:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Elphion. You have new messages at Lithopsian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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

Using 10xxxxxx in the leading byte, zero or more 110xxxxx intermediary bytes, and 111xxxxx in the trailing byte, instead of my earlier suggestion, would be as bit-efficient as UTF-8 is now. It would be possible to take the maximum number of bytes (4), mask out all but the third bit of each possible continuation byte, and use a single instruction to find the leading 1 to know the length of the byte sequence, which seems fairly efficient. Is UTF-8 still noticeably more performant? Or is it just easier to implement with all information in the leading byte? All plausible, but do we know or are we guessing? Maybe it's better to just omit the second part of that sentence. RFST (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Speculation about what UTF-8 *might have done* to solve the synchronization problem is not really appropriate for that article. It suffices to say that the number of bytes in a sequence is signaled in the lead byte, so that a stream can be traversed by looking only at lead bytes. Yes, intermediate bytes should be inspected for *verifying* the stream, but one often traverses streams that have already been verified. I was tempted to delete the second clause in the sentence you quote (in addition to the further restatement that I did delete), but decided that since someone thought it necessary to point that out, I shouldn't be too hasty. Go ahead and strike it if you like. The further material you mention (other ways to synchronize streams) is out of place at UTF-8. UTF-8 makes no claim that this is the most efficient encoding possible, either for space or time. But it is a very straight-forward one, and easy to work with. -- Elphion (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I had no intention to add any speculation to the article itself, but both the original sentence and your replacement seem to imply performance reasons without backing that up. You write "I was tempted to delete [...] (in addition to [...])", but the first is just your own replacement of the second... I also considered that "someone thought it necessary to point that out", which is why I previously added "Also, " and "clarification needed" instead of removing it. But I'll now remove the second part of the sentence. — RFST (talk) 06:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I had no intention of implying performance gains, simply pointing out that it solves the synchronization problem. -- Elphion (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

My point exactly: it seemed like it might be about performance. BTW, it's not about synchronization here, it's about those times that you (also) can't synchronize on the right. — 109.131.255.227 (talk) 05:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Discussion moved to talk page of article in question. Buistr (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. GimliDotNet (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion moved to talk:Faramir -- Elphion (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Please revert the remaining edits and start discussing your concerns first. Thank you, - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 17:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I have not reverted, but have added a section at the project page. -- Elphion (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

To help try to defuse a budding edit war at Strait of Magellan, I added the location= param to the infobox there (cf. template:Infobox body of water), but the parameter generates no display. What am I doing wrong? -- Elphion (talk) 19:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to let you fix it. Here's the warning that appears when I edit the page: Warning: Strait of Magellan is calling Template:Infobox body of water with more than one value for the "location" parameter. Only the last value provided will be used. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Hmm: Dept of the Bleedin' Obvious. Thanks! -- Elphion (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

An article you recently created, Elizabeth Douglas Van Buren, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for reverting the micro-vandal, that was very helpful. However in the circumstances really you should have issued an immediate stop warning with Twinkle or Huggle, I don't know if you have one of them installed (it's easy). All the best, and thanks for the support, Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:05, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if you are still working on the UTF-16 article, so I'm putting this here to avoid ruining a big edit with an edit comflict caused by a clarify tag.

The text currently reads The standards organizations chose the largest available block of un-allocated 16-bit code points to use for these code units. This is as clear as mud, I'm afraid. Which standards body? Available block where (in Unicode? but if so, is this saying that all code-point in plane 2 are duplicated in [say] plane 22?). Can you clarify? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

First, thanks for raising the issue: I agree that the article is not worded well (it was better in the past). Part of the problem is that this article is supposed to be about the encoding, not about Unicode itself (which is covered in its own article) -- but the peculiarities of the encodings depend heavily on the history and the compromises that went into making it possible for Unicode to be accepted at all. So to understand why the encodings work the way they do, you really have to understand the issues that the standards committees had to work around -- and just which article those details belong in is not something that all editors agree on.

Anyway. "The standards organizations" means the two orgs that separately (and then jointly) developed Unicode: ISO and the Unicode Consortium. Critically, by the time they came together to address the reality that 2^16 was not large enough (and therefore that 2 bytes would not be sufficient for all characters), there was still a large block of code points in USC-2 (i.e., in the BMP, which is all that USC-2 covers) that had not yet been allocated to represent any characters: namely D800 to DFFF. So Unicode grabbed that block and declared it to be permanently reserved for use in the UTF-16 coding scheme for code points at 2^16 and above. That block would never be allocated as individual codes for any character, so officially any encoding representing a single code point in that range is not legal Unicode.

Second, the scheme devised for pairing code units in that range yields a total of 2^20 new code points at and above 2^16 -- and that limits the encodable code points to the 2^16 in BMP + 2^20 new ones above BMP, for a total of 0x10FFFF code points. (Not all of those are valid characters: several, like the surrogates, are permanently reserved). So although previous schemes had envisioned code points as high as 2^31 (and UTF-8 can go even higher), because the UTF-16 scheme is limited to 0x10FFFF, the Unicode code range was permanently truncated at that limit: there will never be Unicode code points higher than that. So the Unicode code points fall into only 17 planes (0x00#### to 0x10####). There is, therefore, no "plane 22".

-- Elphion (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I changed it to criminal as he also raped children but let them go, I thought criminal would make it more broader that he didn't only just kill people, but did other crimes too. Gorrrillla5 17:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I understand the motivation, but "criminal" just doesn't carry enough force. Perhaps "serial killer and rapist"? -- Elphion (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

May I say how surprised I am that an experienced editor like you should resort to inserting uncited material in a lead section, for an admittedly minor matter not appropriate for a mention in the lead, and ignore a perfectly neutral and polite request to put it, cited, into the article body; further, to edit-war at once on the matter; and even further, to put an argumentative thread on the talk page implying anyone was objecting to having the fact in the article, contrary to my edit comment.

Had a new editor done such a thing they would have received at least a level 2 warning. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, BS. The initial removal was simply wrong, and your revert of my reinstatement without discussion was just as egregious. And two reinstallations of original material does not amount to edit warring. Look, I respect the work you have put in on these articles, but you occasionally take a proprietary attitude that is not helpful, and is frankly rather off-putting. -- Elphion (talk)

Way to go... The whole point of my edit was that the "common" name is incorrect. Yes there are hundreds of articles now with this incorrect spelling, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't keep the record straight going forward. Particularly since the vast majority of people reference Wikipedia for this information. For all we know a single person started this misconception and all you're doing is allowing it to continue. This is exactly why Wikipedia should not be anyone's primary reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maven8 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

You are seeking to establish what you believe is the correct version of the name. This is not what Wikipedia does; instead, we rely on reliable published sources. Per WP:COMMONNAME, the usual English spelling (for the town as well as the observatory) is "Simeis", and this was true even before the advent of Wikipedia. -- Elphion (talk) 18:11, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Md5kamanall 2402:B400:444C:E4BD:92FC:DFD6:8E5A:9D35 (talk) 09:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

You reverted a change I made to the Balrog article on the grounds that 'Ainur is not appropriate' and that 'Valar does sometimes include Maiar'. I don't see how either of those positions can be supported.

The Ainur were all the spirits Eru created. The Valar were the 15 most powerful Ainur who entered into Middle-earth. The Maiar were all the other Ainur who entered Middle-earth. Ergo, no it is never accurate to refer to a Maia as a Vala. The text you reverted to is incorrect, and the proper term is indeed Ainur. All of this is clearly spelled out in the Wikipedia article Ainur in Middle-earth and, of course, the source texts. What is your basis for the opposite position? --CBD 18:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• @CBDunkerson: See talk:Valar/Archive 1#How broad is the term Vala? and talk:Maiar#Changes addressing the above. Also, this earlier version of Maiar, whose first paragraph is somewhat more accurate than the current version: []. It is quite clear (especially in Ainulindale and its earlier version in Lost Tales) that Tolkien originally used "Valar" as well as "Maiar" to mean all of the Ainur who entered Arda, and while his usage gradually changed, he explained that change as an evolution of the Elvish tongues. Re "inappropriate": We're talking about Valar (and Maiar) taking different shapes within the world, which certainly wouldn't apply to the Ainur who didn't enter the world. Happy to discuss. -- Elphion (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  I looked, but while those three links repeat your position, I did not find any evidence supporting it. You mention Ainulindale, but the word Maiar does not appear in any version of that text. As to Lost Tales, the concept of the Maiar did not even exist yet when those texts were written. Thus, neither source seems to come remotely near making the case that the term 'Maiar' could be described as a subset of the Valar at any point in the development of Tolkien's stories. In contrast, one need only look at the Silmarillion index to see clear definitions of all three terms. Those meanings never changed from the moment Tolkien introduced the term Maiar (Annals of Aman ~1951-58) through the last updates he made before he died. --CBD 01:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

No, the evidence is plainly there: beings he later called Maiar are mentioned by name (so they certainly did exist) and are called Valar. He says explicitly that the Elves generally used the term 'Valar' for the mightiest of them, but the ambiguity remains. Even the phrase "Lords and Queens of the Valar" points in this direction: some of the Valar are so mighty that they became the lords and queens. Compare also the quote from Parma: "Maia is the name of the Kin of the Valar, but especially of those of lesser power than the 9 great rulers." Yes, the index of the Silmarillion makes a clear distinction, but that's Christopher's take and does not reflect the text of Ainulindale in that very volume.

I am not arguing that Tolkien makes no distinction between 'Valar' and 'Maiar', only that his early writing (often our only sources for their characteristics) occasionally uses both terms inclusively to embrace all the Ainur who entered Ea. That seems incontrovertible -- the signs are visible in several places both in Silmarillion and in The Nature of Middle-earth. This should be mentioned in Valar and Maiar, not necessarily elsewhere. I have no problem with your latest edit of Balrog, e.g.

-- Elphion (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no that is not accurate. Again, Tolkien's "early writing" does not 'use both terms inclusively... because the term 'Maiar' did not exist yet. It does not appear anywhere in any of the texts analyzed in the first five volumes of The History of Middle-earth (i.e. 1918 - 1937, everything prior to Tolkien starting work on LotR).

Yes, there are texts from that time period where 'Valar' was used to describe ALL of the Ainur who entered Middle-earth... AND their children born within Middle-earth. Then, after completing writing LotR in 1949, Tolkien began revising the Silmarillion texts in hopes of getting the two books published together... and invented the term 'Maiar', specifically to distinguish the ruling Valar from their followers and "kin" (see Morgoth's Ring, The Annals of Aman, note 4). Within a few years of that, the concept of the Valar having children and other kin was dropped entirely and 'Maiar' came exclusively to refer to the less powerful Ainur who entered Middle-earth with the Valar. As such, using 'Valar' for all the Ainur who entered Middle-earth is an abandoned meaning of the term... and using 'Maiar' to do so is just incorrect, as it never meant that. --CBD 22:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

But that's not entirely accurate either: the Parma quote above shows that even 'Maia' can be used ambiguously. That is not my principal concern, however. The important point is that the two articles should reflect that Tolkien occasionally uses 'Valar' to include the Maiar -- for the casual reader will encounter that usage without needing to dive into the critical machinery in HoME and NoME. I would also like to avoid using 'Ainur' to mean "all the Ainur who entered Ea", which is why I reverted your edit. I have no objection to "Valar and Maiar" in that regard. -- Elphion (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Let me add that "Kin of the Valar" in the Parma quote is not just Maiar in the sense you highlight above: it includes "the 9 strongest of them" -- i.e., the lords and queens at that point in the development. 'Kin' here means something akin to 'race'. I'm not convinced that Tolkien kept the distinction hard and fast even after inventing 'maia'. The Osanwe-kenta is still on occasion using 'Valar' for both, or using "great Valar" for the lords and queens in distinction to ordinary Valar, e.g., in the passage about Melian (p. 210 of NoME). -- Elphion (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

The main problem I have with most of your arguments is that they are interpretations of the text; You assume that "great Valar" denotes a subset of the Valar, rather than 'great' describing ALL of the Valar. You read the Ainulindale text saying that "they are named the Valar" to be referring to ALL the Ainur who entered Middle-earth, but it could also be pointing back to JUST those who were the "greatest and most fair". Et cetera. Every passage you have referred to as 'definitive' is... not. They're subjective. In wiki terms, 'original research'. I don't read them that way and, in contrast, the 'Valar = small group of most powerful' vs 'Maiar = all others' meanings are attested by countless reliable sources. Notably, you dismiss the Silm index as being the work of Christopher Tolkien. Actually, he copied many of those definitions from his father's unfinished index. I haven't seen anything indicating whether those particular terms were written by JRRT or CJRT... but either way, they're from a 'reliable source'.

You are correct that the usage of 'Valar', and to a lesser extent 'Maiar', in some of the early draft texts were different... but I'd argue that it doesn't make sense to treat those as the default usages. Maybe, if we wanted to go into great detail, we would include information on discarded terms/meanings like that and the time periods they applied for... but treating them as the primary meaning w/o explanation makes no more sense than changing all uses of 'Strider' or 'Aragorn' to "Trotter"... the original name of the (Hobbit) that eventually became the character in the published text. People seeing 'Trotter' in The History of Middle-earth books may well be confused as to who this character is... just as outdated uses of 'Valar', and a hundred other terms, in other draft materials may be confusing. However, using the draft terms/meanings rather than the 'final' and/or overwhelmingly attested ones would be even more confusing. --CBD 03:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, the argument about assumptions cuts both ways, and I would argue that my readings are more idiomatic. But I said nothing about a "default" usage -- in fact I agree that by default 'Valar' should mean the lords and queens, and 'Maiar' the rest, since that is obviously Tolkien's usual meaning in works that most readers will see. I do think it's worth pointing out that Tolkien occasionally uses 'Valar' in a sense that includes the Maiar, since casual readers will run into that. And I would like to avoid using 'Ainur' when what is really meant is Valar + Maiar. Do we really disagree about those points? -- Elphion (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with using "the Valar and the Maiar", and have made that change. Thanks. --CBD 21:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Roughly a decade ago you've added/modified an image of the Cygnus Loop supernova remnant, with several labels indicating prominent features: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cygnus_Loop_Labeled.png . One of these labels indicates an "approximate center". Would you happen to remember where this center location originates from? Was there a paper that you can recall which cites that coordinate as the center of the remnant? PhysDS (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The position comes from Rappaport et al. 1974, referenced in Cygnus Loop#X-ray source (note 19 in the current article). However, now that you call my attention to it, I see that the equinox of the coordinates they report is 1950. In equinox 2000 that should be about 20h 51m 49.3s, 31° 4' 19". This is closer to the visual impression of the center. Do you know of more accurate coordinates? (I would be happy to update the image with better coords.) -- Elphion (talk) 03:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response!

With that paper as a reference, I've gathered that what they thought to be a possible remnant was later found to be just a result of low resolution imaging/binning. See their later paper https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...227..285R/abstract with more recent observations and https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...234..174F/abstract (page 6, "f) Cygnus Loop" - first paragraph) referring to no central object being detected.

There hasn't been a detection of a compact object remnant within the Cygnus Loop yet (associated with the remnant), nor would there likely be one given the size of Cygnus Loop being several tens of pc (~18 pc https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.507..244F/abstract or ~40 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481.1786F/abstract), it's inferred age (~20000 yr) and a typical neutron star kick velocity of ~200 km/s.

If you insist, several papers refer to a geometric center (an approximation of the center of the round upper part of Cygnus Loop) as in https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022RAA....22l5011S/abstract or in coordinates in https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.507..244F/abstract.

But I'd simply avoid mentioning the center altogether.

Best, PhysDS (talk) 15:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree -- no real point in identifying the "center" as it marks nothing physical. I included it only because the article mentioned it. I'll update the image. -- Elphion (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Image updated -- Elphion (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Elphion, I see there's a small kerfuffle about "Oxford spelling". Having edited and created numerous Tolkien articles, I note that almost all of these are in plain British English. This, while not exactly liked by American editors, is at least quite well tolerated (as doctors say of medicines). Oxford spelling, in contrast, confuses many editors as it looks more like American English. It seems to me that we actually have only a very few Oxford spelling articles in the WikiProject, namely JRRT, LOTR, and The Hobbit, maybe a couple more. I'm really not sure I see why we should insist on this variant given the wider context; we are permitted to change the setting by consensus, if such can be obtained, and it seems to me that there is in 2025 quite good reason to make the change, namely that 1) it's less contentious 2) it's easier for AE readers and editors to grasp, and 3) we'll have uniformity across the WikiProject. I say this as someone who personally prefers to write in something close to Oxford spelling myself, by the way, while recognising that it is becoming increasingly unusual and old-fashioned. I don't feel that the articles gain anything by going beyond standard British English; the use of minor historical variants seems to me quite hard to justify (we don't have our Chaucer article in Middle English, or Shakespeare in Early Modern English, to say the least, and I don't suppose anyone will create spoken versions of Middle-earth articles in Received Pronunciation, either...). What would you feel about this? All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I have no axe to grind, though I resent editors who change the established style of an article without even trying to get consensus. As I've said before, I'm an "equal-opportunity reader": differences in spelling and punctuation style are to be expected in a global medium; they don't bother me, and there's no real reason not to tolerate them. It's far more irritating to see editors going out of their way to "correct" things, insisting that their own style is Right. It would be a different matter if WP had a more specific style guide, but as it is, I see far too much energy spent on trying to achieve "consistency", when there is none from article to article, and no compelling reason to insist upon it even within an article. (My 2p, for what it's worth.) -- Elphion (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

OK, I'll think about it and maybe even ask around a bit. I fear that OE is especially subject to editors who think it's "wrong" because it looks half like AE. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2025 (UTC)