User talk:Srleffler

Welcome!

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

Here are some tips to help you get started:

Read the tutorial and learn how to edit a page.
Experiment in the sandbox.
Follow the Simplified Ruleset.
Try to edit from a neutral point of view.
Use talk pages to communicate with other editors.
Be bold in updating pages.
Eventually, read the Manual of Style and learn about the Five Pillars of Wikipedia.
And most importantly, have fun!

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)\[reply]

I think I fixed my screw up

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

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

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)[reply]

Aspheres

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

Um yes, I think so, sorry. I've rewritten it slightly. --Bob Mellish 19:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Catmore=(cat/page and maybe redirect)

I did not invent this idea of cats that have count get an "s" at the end.
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)
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)[reply]

Catholic War

Answered your question here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)[reply]