Misplaced Pages

User talk:Srleffler

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Srleffler (talk | contribs) at 05:54, 25 March 2006 (Flag archive version of page.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 05:54, 25 March 2006 by Srleffler (talk | contribs) (Flag archive version of page.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Srleffler. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Welcome!

Hello Srleffler, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

If you need any help, see the help pages and glossary, add a question to the help desk, or ask me on my talk page.

I hope you will enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian. Good luck! — Bcat

Moving light sources into Category:Optical devices

Hey, Welcome!

I've noticed you're moving lasers and masers from Category:Optics to Category:Optical devices. The problem is that I think light sources belong first in the former rather than the latter. Everything else in Category:Optical devices are passive optical devices like lenses, gratings, etc., a completely different animal than a light source, so I thought I'd talk to you about what you think about it. — Laura Scudder | Talk 16:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Good job

Good job tidying up the laser entry. Thanks. --Frodet

Hi there. I'd just like to say I appreciate the good work you're doing tidying up many of the optics-related articles. Nice work. --Bob Mellish 16:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Work on Real Presence

I appreciate your edits in this article. They help reflect what is most widespread in Lutheranism without losing the basic teachings. Thank you. drboisclair 12:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)\


Hi: You wrote thanking me for my work on Real Presence and metousiosis, asking my background, and stating that my writing did not mesh with your experience of Lutherans. I have a Doctorate in Divinity (major: Anthropology) from Concordia. I come at this from the perspetive of decades of study of Eucharistic liturgy, and study of the Old-Catholic movements. I also come at it from study of the full communion agreements between Anglicans and Lutherans, and I am a member of the Episcopal Church. I come from a background with Italian Roman Catholics on my mother's side, British and Dutch Protestants on my birth-father's side, and Jews on my step-father's side. Nrgdocadams 08:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

Hi. I don't seem to be able to simply "reply" when you write me, which is quite annoying. In any case, here is what you wrote to me:

Thanks for your reply. What is confusing me is mainly the assertion that Lutherans do not believe in "consubstantiation". Some of us certainly do, and I would like to track down the root of this disagreement. My background is in the Canadian ELCIC Lutheran Church, and I am now a member of the American ELCA Lutheran Church. Both churches (at least in my experience) teach a doctrine of "consubstantiation", contrary to what you wrote. I double-checked this with my pastor recently (because this has come up on Misplaced Pages before), and he confirmed that our belief is "consubstantiation". Several online sources claim that the term was coined by Melanchthon, although it seems that he may have rejected this doctrine later in life in favor of a "spiritual presence" doctrine along the lines of Calvin's. Perhaps there are some Lutherans who do not believe in "consubstantiation" and some who do. If so, we need to figure out which groups do and do not in order to correct the article. Concordia is an LCMS institution, isn't it? (Which Concordia did you go to? There are several.) Perhaps there is a disagreement on this between LCMS and ELCIC/ELCA? It wouldn't be the only area of theological disagreement. If this isn't an area of disagreement between Lutherans, then either you are mistaken or quite a few Lutherans are mistaken about what Lutherans believe. A broader question: What, exactly, is the difference between "consubstantiation" and what you assert Lutherans believe? Perhaps we are talking about the same set of beliefs, but some Lutherans use the label "consubstantiation" while others do not. Another area of difference: You wrote that after communion the elements are disposed of, "except for a small amount kept for emergency use for the sick." ELCIC/ELCA Lutherans do not do this. For us, communion doesn't exist except in the context of the ritual. It would be meaningless to take pre-consecrated communion elements to the sick. Rather, the pastor bringing communion to the sick person would conduct an abbreviated Eucharistic liturgy in their presence.

My Concordia is the one in St. John. It is not affiliated with the Missouri Synod, thank God. However, the Missouri Synod (which is far too conservative for my tastes) is quite a lot more explicit about rejecting the philisophical term "consubstantiation" than some other Lutheran groups.

In every Lutheran Church I have attended in the San Francisco Bay Area -- whether ELCA or those who joined the independent movement because the ELCA ejected them for calling openly gay pastors -- the sacrament has been reserved for the sick, after the celebration of the Holy Eucharist, in an aumbry or a tabernacle.

Please allow me to tell you that you are quite incorrect in stating that "ELCIC/ELCA Lutherans do not do this. For us, communion doesn't exist except in the context of the ritual. It would be meaningless to take pre-consecrated communion elements to the sick." In fact, the "Lutheran Book of Worship - Pastor's Desk Edition" provides for the reservation and reverence of the Most Blessed Sacrament. The Lutheran Book of Occasional Services provides for a Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts specifically for those who are sick or in other difficulties, by which the consecrated gifts from the parish's celebration are brought to the off-site communicants, without an "abbreviated Eucharistic Liturgy," which is called: "Distribution of Communion to Those in Special Circumstances" (pp. 76-82). The rubrics state: "The distribution is an extension of the Lord's Supper to those, such as the sick and homebound, who are unable to be present at the celebration of the congregation." They also state: "To underscore the significance of bringing the congregational Eucharist to those unable to participate in the assembly, the Communion should be carried to the absent without delay following the congregational celebration. Sufficient ministers should be apponted so that all the absent may receive Communion within a few hours of the congregation's service that day." The rubrics carefully state that the gifts needed "should be carefully estimated so there is sufficient for each communicant yet without a great quantity remanining after all have communed." The rubrics explicitly do not provide for any re-consecration of the elements, and direct specifically that the minister "does not touch or lift" the gifts during "the address." The gifts are delivered, however, in the usual manner: "The body of Christ, given for you," and "The blood of Christ, shed for you." Indeed, when a pastor is the minister of the reserved sacrament to the special communicant, the rubrics provide that s/he may give a benediction at the end of the service with the gifts to the communicant, saying: "The body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ strengthen you and keep you in his grace." In addition, the rubrics also note: "During certain seasons -- especialy Advent-Christmas and Lent-Easter -- celebrations of the Lord's Supper by an ordained minister should be scheduled for the sick and homebound with the congregation, or significant numbers from the congregation, invited. Thus, those who cannot attend church will occasionally have the benefit of a visible community and a fuller liturgy, including a sermon and perhaps singing." I believe that is all rather explicit. But, as if to underscore the point, the BOS also provides for the blessing of a tabernacle to reserve the sacrament: "Accept this aumbry/tabernacle which we offer in thanksgiving; may our use of it be with reverence and love, and may all who receive the heavenly food and drink be sustained by your grace and power." Both of these books are chiefly used by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada.

While there certainly may be some Lutherans who belive in consubstantiation (as there are some Anglicans and some Roman Catholics and some Orthodox and some Old-catholics who do), none of these churches "teaches a doctrine of consubstantiation." The official positions of the Lutheran Churches who are in full communion with Anglican Churches, through the instruments of communion, is that there is a belief in the Real Presence, and that the presence is objective and abiding. The Lutheran Confessional documents in the Book of Concord never discuss "consubstantiation." They state, repeatedly, that Christ is present "in, with, and under the forms" of bread and wine. I think you would be hard pressed to find a Lutheran divine who has officially advanced and propounded the doctrine of "consubstantiation," despite what some laypeople (and even a few pastors) might think.

The differences between Luther's and Melancthon's positon on "sacramental union" and the scholastic philosophical idea of "consubstantiation" are many.

Here are two principal differences.

First, "consubstantiation" is a concept which, like the Roman Catholic scholastic approach, attempts to put into a scientific formula a metaphysical definition that describes the process of the mystical change and the mode of presence. It says that two substances -- food and Christ -- are joined together into the elements, while maintaining their substantial seperateness. This can be correlated with an extreme extension of the alreeady tortured Chalcedonian formula that says that two hypostases -- divinity and humanity -- were joined without confusion in the one person of Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, even in Chalcedon's formula of the Hypostatic Union, a new hypostasis is born: redeemed, new nature. And that new nature, as the Scriptures and the Fathers tell us, is supposed to undergo theosis through a process of grace, faith, repentance, working by love, and progressive sanctification. Yet consubstantiation consigns two realities to a stagnant, prehaps even temporary, utilitarian co-existence. Luther and Melancthon, like the Orthodox divines before them and like Anglican and Old-Catholic divines after them, were loathe to try to pin down -- ad absurdam, as they wrote -- the "how" of the change or the mode of the presence. This they were as loathe to do as to say that the Eucharist "repeats' the sacrifice of the cross.

Second, "sacramental union" simply describes the nature of a sacrament: that it has an outward, visible sign and an inward, spiritual grace. In this case, the outward, visible sign is bread and wine -- given, taken, and eaten according to the Lord's command. The inward, spiritual grace is the reality of the Risen Christ, the true Body and Blood of Christ. That is the sacramental union -- the forms are bread and wine, the reality is Christ. How does it happen and what exactly is the way in which Christ is -- on an excellent level and objectively -- present in the forms of bread and wine, given with the forms of bread and wine, and received under the forms of bread and wine? Who knows? That's why it is a MYSTERY. We don't know exactly how theosis will proceed or how the spark of the Divine fire is present in each of us, but it is; and that is a mystery, too.

Nrgdocadams 22:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

Thanks again for your rely. I am glad that my responses have clarified the issue. I did not think that "erroneous" was a problematic term, largely because its applications to Lutheran beleif always has been erroneous. In fact, application of the rerm to Lutehran belief has hisotrically been an insultaginst Luterhan by Roman Catholics, who used the term to underscore what they felt was the "deficiency" of the Lutehran theology of the sacrament. The ugly truth about the word is not that it was not some invention of Melancthon's but, rather, that it was a smear used by Roman Catholic divines against the Lutheran position of "Real Presence by sacramental union." Aside from the Llolardy groups (chiefly British, I think), there really have never been any Churches which have officially taught consubstantiation as dogma. It may well be, however, that after centuries of having had the epithet of consubstantiation hurled at their rather more subtle and mystical theology, a fair number of Lutherans have simply thown up their hands in resignation and accepted the term as at least distinguishing the Lutheran position from the Roman. Unfortunately, the term does not accurately present genuine Lutheran theology as set forth in the Book of Concord and the Full Communion Agreements. In my experience, it has usually been Lutherans -- albeit pastors and theologians, largely -- who have vigorously rejected the application of the term to Lutheran belief. I hope that helps clarify further. Also, with regard to tabernacles, I have seen in Lutheran churches this take a variety of forms. I've seen everything from the kind of central, ornate style of free-standing safe -- often at the high altar -- that one finds in Orthodox and Roman churches, and in a lot of Anglican churches; to the simple Gospel-side (south) wall aumbry or side chapel safe, as is found in many Anglican churches (which one finds in a lot of Roman churches these days, also); to a secure safe (usually with a cross or icon on it and a light near it) in the sacristy. I think that which of these options is chosen depends on the polity of the congregation.

Nrgdocadams 07:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

I think I fixed my screw up

Or are you still working on it?--Midnite Critic 06:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Your edit created an edit conflict. I'm almost done going through that. It's not helping that Misplaced Pages's servers are acting up..--Srleffler 06:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again

Appreciate your help. Please see my comments/questions regarding the Lutheran view of the Real Presence on the Eucharist: User Talk page. Thanks.--Midnite Critic 16:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Aspheres

Re: aspheric lens: Can't aspheric surfaces be used to correct aberrations other than spherical aberration?--Srleffler 19:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey thanks for looking over my site on Simple Harmonic Motion. I just wanted to know what is wrong with making the equations with images. I feel that it is better because u cannot write subscripts and it's bigger and clearer. So y mark it for deletion?

Chaosfeary

See my talk page for reply. You might want to bring this up at WP:AN/I. David | Talk 22:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for reverting to a poor version. I try to watch out for that, but every hundred edits, I get too relaxed. CanDo 02:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Please do find policy and let me know

I would love to know what the policy is. My instinct tells me that if a page has its own category (I like to call it a "catmore pair"), then it is better to just let all that relationship stuff float up to the category level. True, that means you have a mix of category and articles, but look, for instance, at what is going on with the Category "Monarchies". A mess. Letting it float up to the categories is the only thing that, to me, makes sense. Otherwise you have duplication and inevitable inconsistency . Again, if there is a concensus, please let me know. -- Fplay 05:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Another way of putting it: Which cats do you put on the page vs. put in the cat. Can you have mismatches? It is easy to say that "Monarchies" should be the article, but other cats are not so obvious. It sure is confusing to have both. -- Fplay 05:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
My general rule is that if an article is the defining article of a category (e.g. they form a "catmore pair"), the article should appear in every parent category of that category. If an article is in a category and is not the defining article of the category, it should appear in none of the parent categories of that category. I routinely recategorize articles this way.--Srleffler 05:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Catmore=(cat/page and maybe redirect)

  1. I did not invent this idea of cats that have count get an "s" at the end.
  2. There is very rarely an excuse to have two W pages for a subject -- one singular, one plural . A suffix is a terrrible way to indicate a semantic difference (prefix are more mnemonic)
  3. Whatever admin deleted my newly-created "ceramic material" page did not look at the "What links here" info before doing the delete. (I may have forgotten to add it to my newly-created ceramic materials cat, I do not recall and, not being an admin, I cannot see now. I probably did create it as an orphan, but I did it again and now it is right.).

A parameter-less {{catmore}} has simplicity and the redirect kills two birds with one stone: Fixes the catmore for subjects with count and blocks the creation of a plural-named sibling page (like the whole Art vs. Arts nightmare). I also happen to think that pages that are already plural-named should have a singular-named redirect to block the creation of a second and inconsistent singular-named page.

So... I will try again with the "ceramic material" page.

The reason why I grabbed "Ceramics" was to keep the list of "Fine arts" pure for those sensitive MFA-holding arty-type people. What else should I use? Pottery? That does not work. The engineers concerning themselves with construction materials will not mind having a two-word category for clay-for-bricks and stuff. It is a small matter to them.

Do you still find fault with my judgement or my decisions? Even if you do, how many others would disagree with the results? -- Fplay 17:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Catholic War

Answered your question here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Dominick#An_outside_view That girl could sure use your help if you're of a mind to give it. Malachias111 15:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Fisheaters

Re User talk:Just zis Guy, you know?#Fisheaters links, I've said it there but I am happy for either you or Malachias (or any other neutral third party with a real edit history for that matter) to insert the links where appropriate. We'll treat it like autobiography, shall we? ;-) See also User talk:Malachias111. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 15:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

From Dominick

If good faith is reciprocated, as Guy said, traditional Catholic and Catholic links are OK. Anywhere else for the moment may or may not contribute. This fisheaters site was used to attack Misplaced Pages, and I spent three months of being treated like a dog at traditional Catholicism by this crew, coordinated from the fisheaters site.

So, I made it clear to Malachias:

  1. All personal attacks cease, no more screaming "liar".
  2. All reverts cease.
  3. All inkling of coordination someplace else ceases.
  4. If any anonymous user adds the link it will be reverted.

If the links contribute to the article and are added by a third party I will not revert. People are watching this crew and the links. The survey showed by her admission 5% of her referrals, the top referral site, was Misplaced Pages.

BTW, My Grad school thesis was electro-optic heterodyning. Dominick 15:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, Hanlon's Razor applies. I have been dealing with these folks, who don't read the responses, claim malice on my part, and attribute bizarre paranoiac theories to my efforts. It has to apply. With other people seeing what I see, I feel like this sillyness is going to be managable. I welcome an ArbCom proceeding as U2BA has threatened repeatedly, if not daily. Even better, my conscience is clear. Dominick 17:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Nomenclature

Overview is one word. I can live with "main article", but then we have to kill overview. We can live with both internally, but not on the user interface. Pick one. -- Fplay 19:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. My issue with "overview" was that in many (perhaps most) cases, the article in question is a full-fledged article, not merely an "overview" of the material contained in the category. --Srleffler 19:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
What we need to express is that the article has an obligation to express the scope of the category. That is the nature of their relationship. If there is a better word, then let us find it and deploy it uniformly. -- Fplay 21:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Category article? It's what it is. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 21:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't feel that the article has such an obligation. Articles come first. If an article doesn't express the scope of the category, then it shouldn't be marked as the main article for that category. If a category doesn't happen to have a main article right now, that's fine. Some categories don't need one—a short introduction or overview in the category itself may be enough. If an article is needed, someone will write one eventually. As you know, I don't feel that the main article of a category necessarily needs to be the article that has the same name as the category. As long as the category introduction says what the main article is (if there is one), I'm good. --Srleffler 21:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguations

Please stop making disambiguation pages for acronyms that have only a single meaning. This is really pointless and harmful. Disambiguation pages are for the case where two or more meanings of a word or title need to be disambiguated. I understand that you're trying to get the acronyms to appear in the "x letter acronyms" categories. The fact that you have to go to such a contortion to make this work may well be a good argument that these categories should not exist.--Srleffler 05:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you have a better idea to fix the stuff that User:Gjs238 has been doing, adding ] and ] links to the bottom of numerous articles, such as Texas Instruments OMAP. It's been creating a mess at Category:4-letter acronyms and Category:5-letter acronyms. If you have a better way of handling it, tell me about it. Quicksilver 05:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. --Excaliburo 14:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Contact lens

I thought you might have some insight into updating the Contact lens article. If you're interested, please consider voting for it on Misplaced Pages:Article Improvement Drive. Thanks! - AED 07:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your note about Chaosfeary. I really didn't have much hope of him fixing it anyway, and have been whittling away at disambiguating the links. Gene Nygaard 14:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Work on metousiosis

You wrote that you "have a problem" with the terminology "at-one-ment." You also asked for the etymology of the word "atonement." This seems to me to be more of some kind of pet peeve on your part than to have any solid basis for criticism. "At-one-ment" is a simplification of the word's meaning, used by many writers in attempting to disambiguate such packed metaphysical terminology. There are disagreements about the etymology of the word "atonement," but both theologically and lingustically, at-one-ment is certainly one of the meanings. Moreover, in the context of the article on metousiosis, the word is used as part of the explanation as to the unity that exists in some way between the Church's sacrifice of praise, which is done repeatedly, and the Eternal Sacrifice which Jesus offered-up with his life on the cross, once for all. In some way, the two are at-one. Similarly, the participatory anamnesis of the Eucharist is a participation in the salvific atonement. What better way to unpack it than to say, "at-one-ment?" In any case, lacking any better critique than "I have a problem with..." followed by no "because...," I have restored the word "at-one-ment" to the article and put "Atonement" in parentheses, and have kept the word linked to the article on Atonement for even more clarification.

Nrgdocadams 06:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

Laws of electromagnetism

Hi, yes, I'm well aware that vectors can be written as products of spinors, and that this is isomorphic to a description in terms of quaternions and/or pauli matrices (in modern terms the double-covering of SO(3) by SU(2)). However, I found that particular article to be poorly written, and smelling somewhat of "original research", and I was trying to get to original author to clean it up. WP is not the place for people to rediscover SU(2) and quaternions using idiosyncratic notation. I wanted to see some basis in history or common practice. linas 04:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The original author's tirade about energy, exergy, and the mistakes of Maxwell and others isn't leaving me feeling good about the article ... linas 05:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Yep. Since he asserts that this treatment is not consistent with Maxwell, the answer is clear. If he can't provide references, the article is original research and can be deleted.--Srleffler 06:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Gimballed mirror mount photos

I added two images to the Commons:Category:Engineering called Gimbalmount1.jpg and Gimbalmount2.jpg. I was going to take photos of our optical tables too but they were pretty messy and I feared user wrath if I disturbed them. Alison Chaiken 06:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at this mirror mount: Fourknobmount.jpg in Commons:Category:Optics. Alison Chaiken 03:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

3RR clarification

I noticed on WP:AIV that you were afraid that Emo (music had passed ots revert limit for the day. Just so you know, the 3 revert rule does not apply to clearcut vandalism, only to content disputes. Also, it doesn't apply to a page as much as it does each editor. Hope this helps, Mo0 18:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, your warning about Emo (music) mentioned passing its revert limit, so I assumed you were mentioning the 3RR. I believe the removal of your notice was a mistake on the part of User:SCZenz... I can't stick around right now to ask him, but you should ask him if he meant to remove your notice. Mo0 18:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

AIV vs ANIV

Hi, thanks for your message and for the vandal reports. Generally, ANIV is only for reports that meet all the blocking criteria. AIV is for whatever vandalism you'd like to report -- often users monitor that page to help in reverting vandalism, or to maintain a record of vandalism, but those reports often don't all meet the criteria for blocking.

For instance, the IP that you just reported on ANIV doesn't meet the criteria, for a few reasons. First and foremost, this IP has only vandalized once today. Blocking is not meant to be punitive in general, it's meant to stop bad behavior. If he's only vandalized once today, that's not enough to warrant administrator intervention -- one vandalism can easily be reverted. If this person had been tagging multiple articles today, then that's a more serious matter. You say that this IP has multiple warnings, but because it's an IP we can't be sure that this is always the same person and has seen these warnings. Vandalism warnings from 2-3-4-5 days ago don't cut it. The vandalism warnings must be made during the same day the vandalism has occurred, preferably as it's occurring so we can be sure the person saw it.

So, there are a lot of hurdles that need to be met before something is posted on ANIV; most people just don't realize what all they are. Reporting on AIV airs out the activities, but most vandalism reports -- unless they're really egregious -- don't really need blocking. Reporting every vandalous edit you see would only clog up ANIV, which should be reserved for ongoing persistent vandalism that continues in the face of several current warnings. Please feel free to drop any further questions on my talk page and thanks for your vigilance. · Katefan0/mrp 18:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

No, not at all, provided the rest of my information above was met. Whether they vandalize one page multiple times or several pages once, as long as it's during the same time period -- roughly, the same day -- and they were properly warned, then they can be blocked. The problem is that a dynamic IP may be used by anyone, multiple people even. Someone who saw a vandal warning yesterday or two days ago may not be the same person who's experimenting today. So the vandalism warnings need to be current to when they are vandalizing. That there was a test4 issued on Jan. 3 doesn't mean that a vandalizing edit on Jan. 9 is instantly blockable (see above).
To your questions about test4. I note that on Jan. 3, this person vandalized twice and was warned twice, the second warning being a test4. You suggest that he somehow "got away with" vandaliing after this test4, but if you look through this IP's contributions history you'll see that he stopped vandalizing after the test4 warning. This is often the case. When faced with ultimate consequences (i.e. a block), most people will quit. That's why it's important to ensure that warnings are made concurrently with ongoing vandalism. Someone who experiments by inserting "poop" into United States today could become a good contributor tomorrow, and so it's important to try to ensure we aren't biting the newcomers with punitive blocks when they are probably just clueless rather than malicious.
I know vandalism can be frustrating. EXTREMELY frustrating. But remember that every case is different. There is a difference between someone who is just testing out Misplaced Pages ("What? You mean they'll let ME edit? Cool, let me try...") and people who are blatant vandals inserting penis pictures. If someone is obviously experimenting, four warnings may be appropriate. If someone is obviously vandalizing to be a jerk, perhaps only two are needed. (Sometimes I will issue a test2 and a test4 and then block, if they vandalize after the test4). · Katefan0/mrp 19:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Usually, what I do in those situations is add a new section header with the date and/or the page that got vandalized when leaving a warning message. That's usually enough for someone who clicks on the page to know it's them you're talking about. · Katefan0/mrp 23:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Real Presence

Thank you, I was asked by a fellow Lutheran at Concordia Theological Seminary, Ft. Wayne, Indiana to look at the article after the anonymous editor made changes to what you and I had done months ago. I appreciated also what you have added to it. Thankyou for your kind words. I have had to make an adjustment on the Latin axiom, and I did so in both articles. Thankyou for cutting and pasting too. Cordially, drboisclair 13:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Is the feminine plural adjective "reliquae" (the others) in your recent contribution to the Eucharist article perhaps a mistyping for the noun "reliquiae" (the remains)? I don't know the original context, and so cannot tell. Lima 17:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude here. Both could be used, and reliquiae would appear to be better than reliquae, but reliquae is the term used by Luther for "what is left over" drboisclair 18:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I posted this on User:Lima's talk page: You left a message on User:Srleffler talk page about reliquae and reliquiae, and I have taken the liberty to respond. I was the one that used the former word in accordance with the sources I used. I think that you are completely right about the more appropriate reliquiae. My unabridged Lewis and Short Latin Dictionary does have this entry under reliquiae on page 1558:"reliquiae (in the poets, also relliqu-; cf. religio init.)". As you can see reliquae is roughly a synonymn. I am glad to learn more Latin from fellow classics scholars! Thank you.drboisclair 19:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I just want to leave here too an observation that I made to Drboisclair. I have no access to the context in which, Drboisclair says, Luther used the word "reliquae"; so curiosity bites me, wondering what was the feminine plural noun that Luther was referring to when he wrote the adjective "reliquae". Was it "hostiae" (communion hosts)? Or "particulae" (particles, little pieces)? Or what?

The adjective "réliquae" (with one /l/) is not a synonym of the noun "relíquiae", whether you write the latter with one /l/ or poetically with two. "Relíquiae" means "the remains", i.e. what is left over; but "réliquae" (from the adjective "réliquus") means "the others" (feminine), i.e. those (feminine} that are left over. Those what?

Lima 17:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Intensity

Sorry, it just looked like it needed a reference.--Voyajer 20:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Lens, disambiguation

Sorry. I did not recognize that the other meanings needed to be linked to easily. Most of the "meanings" were just special cases, and the others seemed unusual. For example, the first thing one needs to read about the lens of the eye is that it is an optical lens. Otherwise, it is hard to understand why its loosing flexibility or becoming cloudy affects vision. Maybe I should have put them at the top and bottom of the Lens page. Please work on it if you have time. David R. Ingham 16:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand disambiguation, but from software experience, I am interested in simplifying interfaces and re-using content. Everyone using the word "apple", for example, should not have to specify that he did not mean a computer. In that case, there is a link on the page about the fruit to a disambiguation page. That is less trouble than having to select the fruit from the disambiguation page every time a link is followed or changing all references to refer to apple (fruit) or apple (tree). (Of course these problems are not as serious here as in computer programming, because we assume the user is a human.) In the case of "lens", my feeling was that the meanings that did not depend on knowing what an optical lens is were so few and unimportant that no disambiguation page was needed at all. That appears to have been incorrect.

The point that I tried to make above is that a reader should not be lead to bypass the article on optical lenses on the way to the lens of the eye or to camera lenses, because the specific information does not make sense without the general information. Reproducing or re-writing the general information, like explaining focusing in the camera or eye article, is a maintenance problem because when someone makes a change or correction he won't be able to find all the places to make the change. David R. Ingham 18:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not planning at present to work specifically on the lens pages, but I need to read what you say more carefully for other changes.

I don't think the second point has been answered fully. These changes are intended to give the best result when a link is inserted without each author checking where each link it goes. I argue that in the lens example both the lens (optics) and the more specialized page need to be seen by the reader, because it would be a maintenance problem to repeat general information about lenses in the specific articles, but it is essential to understanding them. One solution would be for everyone writing a specific article to include links to any general articles necessary, but in my view that would lead to too much unmaintainable duplication.

These questions may not seem important, but from a viewpoint of software and systems engineering, the size and rate of growth of Misplaced Pages suggest that integration and design for maintainability may be more difficult and therefore more important than the detailed content. One of the clearest examples of the pitfalls, that I have seen, is computational computer programs written by university engineering departments. David R. Ingham 04:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC

Clay, Pottery and Ceramics

So much for trying for concensus on terminology and categories!! What was the basis of your thinking in making these categories? Chemistry, right? Since clay work/pottery/ceramics is more than chemistry -- it is a craft, a technical methodology, an archaeological milestone, a historical process, a high tech industry, as well as a clay art form, how does all that fit into ceramic (art)? You might look at the ongoing discussions Nick and I are having at Porcelain -- all of those topics and perspectives need to be included in a category structure. I would appreciate it if you would read the ongoing discussion at Pottery and contribute before making further decisions. Best wishes. WBardwin 22:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Detectors

In optical detectors, a single photon never excites more than one electron. Quantum physics prevents this. There are detectors, such as avalanche photodiodes and photomultiplier tubes, where the output signal is enhanced by electron amplification (an avalanche effect), but the initial photon still only excites one electron. The amplified signal is obtained by accelerating the electron with an electric field, so that it can excite other electrons by collision. Of course there are also detectors where the signal is amplified by conventional electronics.--Srleffler 01:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You are right, but I disagree ! The photon indeed generates only ONE photo-electron. However, this photo-electron has energy and in a superconductor there is a cascade of effects, at the end of which phonons are generated. These phonons, (heat), can leak out (the system cools down) but a significant fraction of them can break Cooper pairs. Because the energy threshold for Cooper pair breaking is so much smaller than the energy required to generate a electron-hole pair in a semi-conductor, you end up having more than ONE electron available for some time to measure. They will recombine into Cooper pairs after a while. You can measure the number of excitations generated by the original photon as a deviation from the thermal equilibrium state using a superconducting tunneling junction (Josephson junction operated in as particular mode, see Josephson effect). Agree with me that this long story cannot be selled as such on the detector page !! I had wanted to mention this other (new) class of sensors, because they allow single photon counting AND yield information about the photon energy. There is no other device that gives you the color of a single visible photon. Maybe we can re-phrase this in order to avoid people to get confused about quantum mechanics. Regards, Filou 08:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know enough about superconducting detectors to argue the point. If you want to say that the photon excites multiple electrons in the superconducting detectors (but not the other types) I'm fine with that. I removed the reference to the photoelectric effect, though, since this is not the effect used in semiconductor detectors. They are based on simple absorption of photons in a band-gap material.
If you want to mention the micro-calorimeter that can measure photon energy, provide a reference where people can verify the claim and get more information. Speculative devices are not acceptable for Misplaced Pages articles, unless they have been published (ideally in the scientific literature).--Srleffler 13:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Howdy, OK, I will add something about the micro-calorimeter, a thermal device, originally developped for soft x-ray work but sensitive enough to register visible photons as well. Something else: what makes you claim there is no photoelectric effect in the semiconductor detector ? The end result is indeed the creation of one or more electron - hole pairs by some energetic event. But at "time zero" there is absorption of a photon. Filou 14:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The photoelectric effect is when absorption of a photon in a material causes the ejection of an electron from that material. When absorption of a photon raises an electron to a higher energy level, it's just "absorption" or "excitation" of an electron. It is literally "photo-electric", but it isn't the photoelectric effect. Photomultipliers use the photoelectric effect, but photodiodes and other semiconductor detectors do not. They all have the characteristic, though, that you excite one electron per photon.--Srleffler 15:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to dispute that. Maybe this is semantic, after all. I understand the (inverse)photo-effect as being the result of the (creation) annihilation of a photon by an electron. In the case you send light on a metal, we know from experiment that you do need a certain photon energy, say blue, to kick out an electron. You can shine in red light, as intensely as you want, no electron will gain sufficiently energy to compensate the work function etc. However, all the photons that are not reflected are absorbed and transfer their momentum to some electronic state. Because the photon is destroyed I'd advocate to call this the photo-electric effect. Filou 19:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's just semantic. The issue is the exact definition of "the photoelectric effect". I believe the conventional definition includes only the case where the photon causes an electron to be ejected from the material (which happens only when the photon's frequency is high enough, as you noted). Blue photons that excite an electron to a higher state within the material are, I believe, not participating in the photoelectric effect. I could be wrong. It also wouldn't surprise me if, say, semiconductor physicists used the term differently from other physicists.--Srleffler 23:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks on the plates - etc

Glad you moved the remarks on sky surveys. Forgot to explain, however, that one can't very well continue a survey when the plates are no longer sold because newer media would produce images that were not consistent. By the way, the old fashioned phototubes (1940's) did produce an electron cascade using a sequence of (as I recall from that period) concave dynodes. Carrionluggage 19:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, AFAIK photomultipliers still work that way. The initial photon, though, only excites a single electron. That electron then is accelerated by the potential difference between the dynodes, and collides with them releasing many more electrons which cascade through the detector.--Srleffler 23:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

rvv

Sorry to not have caught that. I will keep a look-out for multiple changes in the future! -Rekleov 19:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Why Detectors and not Photodetectors

Just curious if there is a real reason not to move most of the optics-specific stuff out of Detector and into Photodetector? From the word itself, I'd think even photographic plates could be fit into photodetectors -- Is there a rule that limits the term photodetectors to opto-electronic devices? At the moment, Photodetector is just a list of references to other articles, but it would seem to be a more appropriate place than the more general detector article to discuss the choice of detector for various applications.

As a resolution, I think I'll propose merging Detector into Sensor and Photodetector; but I'd be interested in getting your view on the idea before actually doing the merger.--The Photon 05:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Paraxial approximation

I just completed a graduate-level course at a major university in optoelectronics. We made extensive use of the paraxial approximation throughout the course, not only in ray optics, but also in wave optics and electromagnetic optics. As you rightly pointed out, the issue is not really about the order of approximation, which is really a matter of semantics more than anything. The issue is to make sure that whatever approximation you take will lead to valid results. If you approximate cosine as 1, and ignore the second term of the Taylor series, I believe that you will end up with incorrect results in certain situations. If, on the other hand, you include the first two terms of the Taylor series, you should end up with good results as long as the angle is "small." Besides, including the "extra" term does no harm, but ignoring it can lead to bad results. -- Metacomet 15:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I am copying this text to Talk:Paraxial approximation so we can include others in the discussion. I'll reply there.--Srleffler 18:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Eucharist

I understand. The move should not be controversial unless they are in fact different things, and rendered as different at different articles. I would find it odd if someone objected to my move but accepted the topic box title as Communion linking to Eucharist. Anyway, regards, and happy editing.-Ste|vertigo 03:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Gaussian beam

First of all, I am free to do whatever I choose. Of course, you are free to revert if you want.

Second of all, lowercase "w" is easy to confuse with the lowercase greek letter omega ω {\displaystyle \omega \,} , which as you know, has an important meaning in optics and electrical engineering.

Third, I don't know which is more common. Nor do I think it really matters in this particular case, since we are only talking about the difference between the lowercase and uppercase version of the same symbol.

-- Metacomet 02:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


I appreciate the heads up, and the words of encouragement regarding the clean-up that I have done.

If you don't like the uppercase W, then obviously we can discuss it, or you can change them back to lowercase (there aren't that many, so it's not that big of an effort). As I said, I am not sure that it makes a huge difference. I prefer using uppercase primarily because of the similarity of lowercase w with Greek omega. In addition, a major textbook on Photonics (Saleh and Teich) uses the uppercase W.

I plan to continue working on clean-up and some expansion of the article and related topics. Your help is certainly welcome and appreciated.

-- Metacomet 02:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Canon lenses

Srleffler, I see you've changed the Canon lenses to put a space between the focal length and 'mm'. Whilst I'm sure that is the SI standard, this is not what Canon have named their lenses and how they label their products, and so I would argue for example 70-200mm is in fact correct. The articles are not describing the focal length, they are describing the lens, and as such should use the name Canon gives them. SynergyBlades 23:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It also looks like you've only changed a few of the lenses. Now we've got a few with a space and some more without the space. I think it needs deciding on so it can be all-or-nothing. SynergyBlades 23:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. If Canon names their lenses without the space, I would be OK with someone changing all the pages to match that format. References to focal length outside the name of the lens should comply with the SI standard otherwise: SI units always take a space between the value and the name of the unit.--Srleffler 03:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Lambertian reflectance

I would like to put a merge message on Lambertian reflectance, suggesting that it be merged with Lambert's cosine law, unless you have an objection. PAR 03:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought about doing that too, but hesitated because the former page is very strongly influenced by the computer graphics community, while the latter is more physics oriented. There might be some merit to this separation. Think about it and do what you think is best.--Srleffler 03:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Lens aperture

Can you provide some enlightenment about both effective lens aperture (entrance pupil) and effective focal length? You might mention "nodal point" "retro-focus" and other concepts from both modern lens design magic and basic optics. Here's the problem: it has become impossible for me to tell if a lens's stated specs are either plausible or consistent with one another. I can understand that focal length is not the distance from the rear element to the image plane in a 13-elements-in-7-groups lens. The optical "middle" of the lens (presumably a nodal point from a ray diagram point of view???) is, well, somewhere in middle. But the aperture is even more baffling. For example, most zoom lenses today do NOT become as slow as they "should" be at longer focal lengths. What is left at the practical level for an every-day check anyone can perform? I presume that, if one accepts that one camera lens has a 60mm FL than an unknown lens producing an image in which the same objects have half the linear size has half the focal length. Any other sanity checks? Thanks, the technology is really getting away from me. -- Jerry-va 18:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand your confusion. I may be able to help some, but I'm not a photographer nor do I design camera lenses. (I do design lasers, so I know something about optics.) The focal length of any lens is the distance from the rear principal plane of the lens to the focal plane (where the film or CCD goes when you're focusing at infinity). For a simple thin lens, the rear principal plane will be near the center of the lens. For a complicated multi-element lens, the principal plane could be anywhere. In particular a telephoto lens is, technically, one where the optics are designed to put the principal plane somewhere out in front of the lens, which means that the lens can be shorter than its focal length. Note that it has become common to call all long-focus lenses "telephoto" but this is not technically correct. It is possible to make a non-telephoto long-focus lens. It would just be very long. A retro-focus lens is the reverse of a telephoto lens: the rear principal plane is closer to the film than the nearest element, allowing the rear element of the lens to be further from the film than would otherwise be possible. This allows the construction of very short focal length lenses that can be used with a standard SLR body.
If you're taking photos in air and there is air inside the camera, the rear nodal point is at the same location as the rear principal plane. Nodal points don't appear to be well understood in photography, though. There seem to be a number of misunderstandings about what happens to light at the nodal point. I don't think I can address these here.
Another thing to be cautious of: manufacturers of digital cameras don't always report the focal length accurately. For example, the digital camera I have here says "37mm-111mm (Equiv)". The "Equiv" is there because the focal length range of the zoom lens in this camera is not actually 37-111 mm. Since the CCD in a digital camera is much smaller than a 35 mm film frame, the focal length required to take a photo with a normal field of view is much smaller. Rather than report the actual focal length of the lens, though, they give the focal length of the lens that would produce the same field of view on 35 mm film, and mark it "equiv". Personally, I think this is terrible and leads to unnecessary misunderstandings. I guess photographers like it, though, because it helps them quickly decide whether a lens is normal, long-focus, or wide-angle.
I'm not sure exactly what is confusing you with apertures, but I can guess. Besides misreported focal lengths on digital cameras, many photographers believe that the f-number is the ratio of the focal length to the diameter of the physical diaphragm opening. This is not true. The f-number is the ratio of the focal length to the diameter of the entrance pupil, which is an image of the diaphragm, formed by the lens elements in front of it. If you can open the shutter and see the diaphragm, you should be able to get a rough idea of the entrance pupil size by looking into the front of the camera and observing how big it appears. It may appear much bigger or smaller than the actual opening, due to the magnification of the lens elements. It just depends on the design of the lens.
Hope this helps. Feel free to ask more questions.--Srleffler 21:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


srLeffler, thanks, great help and prompt service too. Let's keep our eyes peeled for a nice diagram that shows how an internal lens aperture disk and the entrance pupil have a conjugate (?right use of word?) relationship as an object-image pair. That should make clear that any ray going through the imaged disk must also pass through the physical disk. Amazing -- those lens mfrs were (probably) NOT lying, despite what my ruler said the glass was. /// Can I start with the following definition, is it .GT. 60% correct? A nodal point is a place on the lens axis through which a ray in a ray diagram can pass unbent? // Frankly, the Misplaced Pages will eventually also need a diagram showing how a telephoto can have a focal length longer than the physical lens, just as the effective entrance pupil can be larger than the objective (first element) lens diameter. // If you want to put some missing definitions out there, I can edit for clarity -- right now, it's hard even asking a question correctly, because Misplaced Pages doesn't help much with definitions of principal point, cardinal point, nodal point . . . I still remember playing with thin lenses as a kid and enjoying simpler pursuits (like, starting fires . . . ).
Thanks again, Jerry-va 17:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Sacramental Union article

Dear User:Srleffler, I would appreciate your looking at this new article and giving it any attention you may see fit. Cordially, drboisclair 20:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Mystified

I'm completely mystified why you "redacted" my user page, when all it contained was a portion of a song, in Portuguese, by Brazilian composer, musician and musicologist Caetano Veloso. The song is an ode to another Brazilian singer João Gilberto. How could this possibly be interpreted as a personal attack? --CSTAR 05:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hot Pink

Can you please return the photo 'Hot Pink in Nature' - you only just put up your question concerning digital altering of the photo - which I just saw today - if you had waited a little while you would have received my reply before removing a good photo. The photo is not mistitled and there is no digital enhancement. The article refers to Hot pink (also neon pink) bold and intense and I purposefully went out to find some hot pink for the article. The photo shows readers immediately what Hot Pink looks like in nature and therefore does add to the article. VirtualSteve 09:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Bios

Hi! I saw your question, and I'm not sure how to answer. I think that ordering of the paragraphs may be confusing. Maybe that sentence about novelty should go under the novelty section. What do you think? Lakinekaki

That might help. I noticed the novelty section after I left my comment.--Srleffler 23:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Caustics

Hi. Unfortunately, the current contents of caustic (optics) is about the same as my level of knowledge on the subject. However, I have a few good textbooks around, I may be able to expand it after some research. --Bob Mellish 16:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Edits on polarizer

Hi, I think a couple of your edits on polarizer are slightly worse than what was written originally. This sentence: "says that when a perfect polarizer is placed in a polarized beam of light, the transmitted intensity I is given by ..." says "the transmitted intensity". I'm skeptical as to whether light is "transmitted" from a polarizer. It seems much more correct to so the "resulting beam has an intensity... etc" because the beam seems to be traveling through the slit, not being retransmitted from anything. Its a small point, but thats why i changed it originally. Also, I think the comma and period next to the equations are unneccesarry and highly distracting. But its just my opinion that those punctuation are really annoying. Fresheneesz 03:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you also removed the explanation for what I was in the equation. I'm gonna wait for your reply before I put that back in. Fresheneesz 03:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

... nevermind, but it really should appear below the equation with the rest of the variables - its much more consistent that way. Fresheneesz 03:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


The rewording looks fine. As for punctuation, while it may be easier to read in good scientific writing, it doesn't seem to be that way on wikipedia. Putting commas and periods inside or outside the math tag make the equation look awkward, and in some cases, a comma can be confused with a prime ('). Also, since a huge break is between the sentence and the equation, a comma is very unnecessary, and a new sentence is aparent from the capitolization of the next word. Therefore, I strongly oppose the punctuation in equations.
As for the placement of the first quantity mentioned, I think this is too arbitrary. Some equations have multiple variables on both sides of the equation, or a non-simple variable (say 1/x or something) in which case that convention would be inappropriate. It would make more sense to be consistent in placing all named variables in one place, as is done on most every[REDACTED] page I've seen. What do you think? Fresheneesz 04:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Focal length

Hi there. Re: some of your recent edits to focal length, my textbooks (e.g. Hecht, Jenkins & White) seem to disagree with some of the definitions you've changed. In particular, the front focal length is defined as the distance between the first focus to front surface vertex, and the BFL is likewise the back focus to back surface vertex distance. They are not defined w.r.t. the principal points. Various other references (e.g. ) seem to follow this usage.

Is this usage perculiar to Grievenkamp (a reference I don't have)? I was looking at this with regards to making diagrams for the cardinal point (optics) article, but it'll be no use if our definitions aren't consistent. --Bob Mellish 18:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Intensity (disambiguation)

Hi. You refer to the style guide concerning disambiguation pages as the reason for removing a link to Koontz's novel Intensity. Why? All I could find on that page is the following passage (and anyway, it's not a dogma I believe):

Links to non-existent articles ("redlinks") may be included only when an editor is confident that an encyclopedia article could be written on the subject.
Adding links to articles not yet written should be done with care. There is no need to brainstorm all occurrences of the page title and create redlinks to articles that are unlikely ever to be written, or likely to be removed as insufficiently notable topics.

How do you know I'm not confident that an article could be written on that novel? Also, how can users looking for an article on the novel find out that it doesn't exist yet? (It might have been created under Intensity (novel), Intensity (book), Intensity (Koontz), Intensity (Koontz novel), Intensity (Dean Koontz), Intensity (Dean Koontz novel) etc.

I know this is a minor issue, but whenever I come across that kind of petty reverting I want to know the whole truth.

All the best, <KF> 21:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. I can see your point now. <KF> 18:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

re: The Rules

It's actually an article from WP:AFC, and I kept the Amazon link around only because the submitter listed it as their source. All the changes you made are great, though. Thanks. ×Meegs 03:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Links

So are you going to tell me what the right link is? And do you notify every user every time they make a typo? --Hetar 06:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Beam width W

Could you please provide a reason why you prefer lowercase w to uppercase W other than simply that you like it better? I have already provided a rationale for my preference, which is that lowercase w is very similar to lowercase omega ω. -- Metacomet 01:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, saying that the image uses lowercase w is not much of a rationale either, because the image can be changed if we decided that we wanted it changed. -- Metacomet 01:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your comments on my talk page: IMO, reverting someone's edits is not intended to be a slap in the face of that person. I disagreed with the revision, I reverted it, and the key thing is, I provided a very clear rationale as to why I was reverting in the comment field that accompanies the revision in the page's revision history. And you reverted my reversion, which you are fully entitled to do, and you will notice, that I have had the sense not to revert yet again. So now it is being discussed on the talk page. All of that is fine, that is the way it is supposed to work, again, IMO. -- Metacomet 05:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yet another date links proposal

You may wish to see the proposal at: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#linking_of_dates. Thanks. bobblewik 18:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

French words

Hi,

This is understood, but notice that all the word I modified have a clear French remnant (like voyeur or avalanche). Regarding the categorisation, isn't there a category:French word/the word (for example for slaughterhouse and abattoir, which have the same article)?

BTW, I really like how you distinguish between an encyclopedia (things) and a dictionary (word). This is, I think, the best explanation (concise and relevant) I heard so far. Reply to David Latapie 14:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Srleffler Add topic