User talk:Lovibond

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Lab color page

I left some responses to your proposal at Talk:Lab color space. Overall, I think it sounds like you have a great set of ideas. So in the spirit of WP:BOLD, please don't hesitate to implement massive changes. They are long overdue. --jacobolus (t) 11:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] color balance images apparently speedy deleted

If those images you added to the color balance article are under a free license, can you re-upload them, and make sure to add a license tag? Someone did a speedy delete on them, for missing a license tag (I presume that's the reason). --jacobolus (t) 23:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed. I took the trouble to obtain permission for their use on Wikipedia, but apparently, that's not good enough for Wikipedia. There didn't seem to be a copyright tag for "licensed for use on Wikipedia," so I couldn't put a tag on them. Until this is resolved, I won't be going to the trouble of putting any more images on Wikipedia! Lovibond 14:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Right, "licensed for use on wikipedia" is not an acceptable license. Wikipedia only allows content that is freely copyable for other uses. Them's the rules. Dicklyon 15:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no such tag. All content added to Wikipedia needs to be either under a permissive license (or in the public domain), or to be usable under “fair use.” That is, since Wikipedia encourages its content to be reused and modified by anyone who likes, images need to allow republication, even commercial republication. However, it is possible to use a “viral” license like one of the CC ShareAlike licenses, or the GFDL, which requires that any derivative works be distributed under the same license. Wikipedia is not in the business of gaining exclusive usage rights, as such rights take away the freedom of other users to do what they like with its content. --jacobolus (t) 18:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, it was one of the options in the pull-down menu, so it was the permission I sought from the author. The image is being used in a book, so making it "free" (as in speech) was not an option. Not that I thought I could have gained such a license. Also, such a license doesn't take a damn thing away from "freedom of other users to do what they like with the content," as they had no such right in the first place. Lovibond 19:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but the point is that Wikipedia has a policy of not using images which are not licensed such that other users can do what they like with the content, unless such images can be used in an article under “fair use.” This is because the idea of Wikipedia as a whole is to create a free encyclopedia, whose content can be reworked and distributed by anyone who would like to. Images which cannot be legally redistributed in such a way should not be used in Wikipedia, particularly if a new image can be created under a freer license. --jacobolus (t) 06:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
To be a bit more explicit, before May 2005, Wikipedia did allow “licensed for use on wikipedia” images. But that policy was changed, because such licenses limit the ability for the encyclopedia or derivatives to be redistributed by others. If an image is claimed to be usable under “fair use,” then the {{withpermission}} tag exists for cases where Wikipedia also has specific permission to use the image, in addition to the fair use rationale. --jacobolus (t) 06:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beer-Lambert law

Hi Lovibond, please note that as per WP:ENGVAR, the Beer-Lambert law article should use British English. The original version [1] used "travelling", as has all the versions up until someone changed it with this edit: [2]. --Bob Mellish 02:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. Since the article has used "travelled" from the first version still in the database [3] (and in fact I'm pretty sure the article was originally written by me sometime in July 2001) right up until Dec 2006 (changed with this diff), I'm of the option that the "stable" version as per WP:ENGVAR is in British English. Thus the recent change by the anon [4] would be resetting back to the original usage. British English can use both "-ize" and "-ise" suffixes, so "normalize" is OK. You might regard this as all terribly trivial (and of course, you'd be right), but there is a slow creep towards American English in all articles when, in good faith, people "correct" the spellings. Thanks. --Bob Mellish 19:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Wheat Beer

Hi, thanks for the tone of your note. A great problem here is that the people who uses sources like this, only speak English, so they are forced to use only English sources. Many of these English sources (in my experience) say ridiculous things -- like German wheat beers must be top fermented by law. Why is it that I cannot find a German source to confirm this? Why, for example, does the wheat beer article in the German Wikipedia not mention this? Furthermore, German beer laws, such as the Reinheitsgebot, deal not with brewing technique, but with ingredients, since brewing techniques are a matter of tradition, not law. Very likely because the source either misunderstood or did sloppy research! (I am, btw, Dutch and can speak and read German and, of course, Dutch.)

Secondly, the second edit about the Belgian wheat beers, also from the same publisher as the German beer book, says in Belgium people ask for a "witte Hoegaarden" for example. Do you know what is wrong with that? No? Well, I will tell you: Hoegaarden is only a white beer!!! So, this is like asking for a "pils Pilsner Urquell". In Belgium (and the Netherlands), people ask for a beer either by name or by type, never by both. I've never heard this in Germany either. In fact, I've never heard it in the UK!

Imagine if someone edited an article about where you live and wrote something like "people there eat soup with forks" and then had a reference from a foreign magazine that you had never heard of. Because you live there, you know who silly this is and because you don't know this foreign magazine (perhaps it is a joke magazine?), do you feel this is something that needs discussion? I don't. The Belgian comment is ludicrous on its own -- you don't need to prove it is not true, anyone who has common sense will realise how illogical it is. The German bit is also illogical if you know German beer and German culture.

I wrote in my edits that the source was not authoritative and I thought that was enough. I hope from what I have written above that you will agree that these statements from this source are in fact not only not authoritative, but also illogical. As I wrote above, this is a fairly common problem here -- using foreign (English) sources -- that are frequently mistaken. Mikebe 11:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


Thank you for your reply, Mikebe. I would like to address your points one by one:
  1. Wheat beers must be top fermented in Germany, according to the Vorläufiges Biergesetz vom 29.Juli 1993, Section 9, Paragraph 1. ("Zur Bereitung von untergärigem Bier darf, abgesehen von den Vorschriften in den Absätzen 4 bis 6, nur Gerstenmalz, Hopfen, Hefe und Wasser verwendet werden. Die Bereitung von obergärigem Bier unterliegt der selben Vorschrift; es ist hierbei jedoch auch die Verwendung von anderem Malz. . . .") This had previously been a provision of the Biersteuergesetz, but in 1993 the non-fiscal aspects were separated out. Warner was trained at TUM/Weihenstephan, from which he holds a Diplom-Braumeister, and he is familiar with the provisions of German beer law.
  2. German beer law does indeed include regulations on the technique of beer production, not just the ingredients. For example, in the same section of the Vorläufiges Biergesetz, Paragraph 4, Subparagraph 2(a) stipulates that if hop extracts are used, they must be boiled with the wort ([Hopfenauszüge müssen] die beim Sudverfahren in die Bierwürze übergehenden Stoffe des Hopfens oder dessen Aroma- und Bitterstoffe in einer Beschaffenheit enthalten, wie sie Hopfen vor oder bei dem Kochen in der Bierwürze aufweist). Indeed, the title of this section in the Biersteuergesetz was "Bierbereitung," not "Bier-Bestandteile."
  3. Any reference to "ordering a witte Hoegaarden" in the article was not referencing Rajotte. Rajotte was cited for the grist potentially containing a portion of oats, and that Belgian Wits usually employ unmalted, rather than malted, wheat. BTW, I have had to qualify orders for Hoegaarden-branded products in Belgium, while ordering Hoegaarden Grand Cru. Were one to simply ask for a Hoegaarden, one would undoubtedely receive the Wit. By the same token were one to simply request a "Grand Cru," the waiter may wonder which one, and whether beer or wine were being ordered. I do, however, agree with you that "witte Hoegaarden" is a stupid way to order the most popular Hoegaarden product. I disagree with you that it came from Rajotte.
I'm sorry some of the editors have included things which you perceive as a put-down of traditions which apparently mean much to you. And I agree with you that there is some nonesense in Wikipedia articles, and that editors should remove or correct it whenever possible. But I do think that it is best done with a scalpel and a steady hand, being careful to excise only the bad material. Lovibond 19:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I will reply the same way.
  1. It is clear from the law why I could not find German proof -- I had looked only for wheat beer and the law covers all beers that don't use only malted barley. Also, I am not a home-brewer and don't actually believe there is much impact this law has for the vast majority of beer drinkers. However, I agree that it is of historic interest and probably belongs in an article. Since it covers a class of beer rather than one kind only, I would propose removing it from the wheat beer article and instead putting it in the German beer article, which, I think, is a much more logical place for it.
  2. As, I assume you are aware, the Vorläufiges Biergesetz is a federalised version of the Reinheitsgebot, which was only valid in Bavaria. This law is the "purity law" (it also talked about price, but that is not relevant) and so, was almost exclusively about ingredients. There is, if you are interested, an article about this in the English part of WP. In my experience, home-brewers, and I see that you are one, tend to look at beer as a technical subject, while the rest of us view it as a pleasure. In that regard, it does not surprise me that you view German beer laws from a brewing perspective.
  3. As I said above, I don't see the need for technical information about beer production in these articles especially since there is already a home-brewing part of the beer portal where all this information would be much more appreciated. That is why I substituted more drinker-friendly information for the technical information that you had. I very much hope that you will agree with me that this technical information about beer production is more appropriate in the home-brewing area than in the general articles. I will remove the ordering nonsense now and leave the technical information for your response.
Again, I do appreciate that we can discuss this in a civil and mature way. I hope that you will appreciate the point I make on the more technical information and that we can agree on that. Mikebe 14:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, Mikebe. While I agree that the bit about a "Witte Hoegaarden" is nonesense, and thank you for removing it from the article (I apologize for restoring that part of it when I restored the material about unmalted wheat and perhaps oats in Belgian Wits) I disagree with much of the remainder of your points. First of all, you state that I am a homebrewer. On what do you base this? I am a master brewer. Secondly, with German unification under Bismark, the Reinheitsgebot became the law of the land as the price of Bavaria's entry, and the current Vorläufiges Biergesetz is a federal law, applying throughout Germany. Why is German beer law germane to an article on Wheat Beer? Inasmuch as the lion's share of wheat beers are produced in Germany, and the material is properly qualified as applying to German wheat beers only, it certainly seems germane. There is a discussion page for the Wheat Beer article; if you would like to make the point that German beer law doesn't have a place in the article, that would be the place to do it.
You are quite welcome about my removing the nonsense. There is, of course, much of it in the beer articles, thanks mostly to American home-brewers who rely on only English language sources (somebody, I think in the wheatbeer article, referenced "joesixpack"!)
On to your second point: I am afraid that you are slightly misinformed. The Reinheitsgebot did not become law with German unification, but rather over 30 years later. But, more importantly, you seem to have completely misread my point number 1 above. May I ask you to please re-read it before replying again?
I also believe that drinkers of a beer have their enjoyment of that beer enhanced by understanding more about it. In addition to this, people have a right to know what they're ingesting. I do not think wheat beer should be like sausages in that one is better off not knowing how they are made. Further, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and "encyclopedic" connotes, in part, comprehensiveness. I do not think that discussing the technical aspects of wheat beers interferes in any way with their enjoyment, and I do believe, as apparently do others, that such information can enhance their enjoyment and this information belongs this article, which is not entitled "Wheat beer (pleasurable aspects)" or "Wheat beer (non-technical aspects)," but simply "Wheat beer." Again, if you disagree with this, I invite you to open a dialog on Talk:Wheat_beer. Lovibond 15:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
This was exactly the sort of reply I expected. What I find so strange, is that your belief "you have to understand it to enjoy it" idea seems to be only applied to beer! For example, do I have to know how a film was made to enjoy it? Do I have to know how the music was produced to enjoy it? In either example, do I enjoy it more because I know how it was made? No! In fact, with many things, such as film, for example, I would rather NOT know how it was made -- it would take away the magic from the experience!
Oddly enough, neither the wine nor whiskey portals on WP share your opinion. Would you be kind enough to explain to me why you believe people cannot enjoy beer without a technical knowledge of its production, yet wine and whisky drinkers can?
As a long time beer drinker with absolutely no knowledge of brewing, I will let you in on a little secret: it is not at all knowing how it was made that leads to enjoyment -- it's ALL in the taste! I have been fortunate to taste some very unusual, very special beers and not one single time did I ever stop to think: how did they do that? To be honest, my feeling was: I don't care how you did that, just do it again! Mikebe 10:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Shall I assume you have not read the text above? I can only believe that your reversion of the wheat beer article is because you have not read it. I don't find that very nice of you.

Secondly, I have already moved the information about the Reinheitsgebot to the German beer article as I said I would several messages above. Why then are you repeating it in the wheat beer article?

And finally, your explanation of why technical information is useful to enjoy beer is absolutely incorrect. And I say that as exactly the type of person who you claim would enjoy beer more if I "understood" it. The only people who benefit from this explanation are your fellow home-brewers.

I look forward to your explanation. Mikebe 17:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Notability of Elliot Quincy Adams

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Elliot Quincy Adams, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Elliot Quincy Adams seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Elliot Quincy Adams, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 22:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CIELAB

"hidden" under a redirect is not the proper place to put a draft of an article. If you don't feel the article is ready to appear under its own title, you can work on it in a subpage in your user space. —Random832 01:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the article from the article namespace while it is being worked on. It's now located at User:Lovibond/CIELAB. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)