User talk:Andrewbrown

Welcome!
Hello, Andrewbrown, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page Gutenberg Bible, have removed content without an explanation. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia: I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Izzat Kutebar (talk) 09:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and how to develop articles
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * Article wizard for creating new articles
 * Simplified Manual of Style

August 2018
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Gutenberg Bible. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Sam Sailor 15:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for going against the grain. Have no idea if typing anything here will be of any use, but the offending paragraph should be replaced with :

The 42-line Bible was printed on the size of paper known as 'Royal'.[1] A full sheet of Royal paper measures 42 x 60 centimetres and a single untrimmed folio leaf measures 42 x 30 cm.[2] There have been attempts to claim that the book was printed on larger paper measuring 30.7 x 44.5 cm.[3] This would correspond to Needham's 'Super-Royal' paper, but this assertion is contradicted by the dimensions of existing copies. For example, the leaves of the copy in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, measure 40 × 28.6 cm.[4] This is typical of other folio Bibles printed on Royal paper in the fifteenth century.[5] Most fifteenth-century printing papers have a width-to-height ratio of 1:1.4 (e.g. 30:42 cm) which is mathematically a ratio of 1 to the square root of 2. Man suggests that this ratio was chosen to match the so-called Golden Ratio of 1:1.6; in fact the ratios are not at all similar (a difference of about 12%). The ratio of 1:1.4 was a long established one for medieval paper sizes.[6]

[1] Paul Needham, 'Format and Paper Size in Fifteenth-century Printing', In: Materielle Aspekte in der Inkunabelforschung, Wiesbaden, 2017, p. 59-108: p. 83.

[2] George Gordon and William Noel, 'The Needham Calculator', 2017: http://www.needhamcalculator.net/needham_calculator1.pdf.

[3] Man, John (2002). Gutenberg: How One Man Remade the World with Words. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. ISBN 0-471-21823-5.

[4] http://incunables.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/record/B-237.

[5] Needham, p. 83.

[6] Neil Harris, 'The Shape of Paper', subsection 'Sheet-size and the Bologna Stone', in: Paper and Watermarks as Bibliographical Evidence, Lyon, Institut d’histoire du livre, 2017, http://ihl.enssib.fr/en/paper-and-watermarks-as-bibliographical-evidence.

Andrewbrown (talk) 05:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)