User talk:AirdishStraus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Sugar[edit]

Refering to the edits on the 'Sugar' page I am of the (professional) opinion that monosaccharides and disaccharides are rightly classified as simple carbohydrates but only monosaccharides are classified as simple sugars. Disaccharides can hardly be considered as simple sugars: they do not even conform to the empirical formula CH2O. They are the result of the elimination of a water molecule from the combination of two monosaccharides. Even the link from simple sugars in line 8? of the complete article links to monosaccharides. AirdishStraus 17:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Mathematics of making a book (betting)[edit]

If the term 'bookmaker' is considered notable then I am of the opinion that the main mathematical means by which a bookmaker makes his living is also notable. It is no different from mathematical aspects of any financial transaction. I am as yet unable to find any website that fully explains the process I am describing; I believe this is because they are mostly sites that exist for purely financial reasons (selling books, betting systems etc.) rather than as points of reference. Thus as an encyclopedia and place for reference I feel my article deserves inclusion. If no definitive article can be found on the internet then surely such an article on Wikipedia fills this important gap? AirdishStraus 17:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on the sources, but someone will complain they are not properly cited. If you take a look at Wikipedia:Citation_templates there are templates for books. Just cut & paste them into the page, then fill in all the info you have. ISBN is fairly critical here. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 23:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tags[edit]

Please do not place speedy deletion tags on articles that do not qualify. Information being covered in another article is not one of the criteria at WP:CSD. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally I believe the articles are legitimate in their own right (though this is not the reason for removing the speedy tag), and the fact that they have been around for more than a year suggests that there is no particular issue with them. However, if you believe they are superflous, it might be a good idea to discuss this with their creator (use the page history tab to find out who started them), or discuss the issue on Talk:Gambling. If you get consensus for such a move, then just turn the articles into redirects using #Redirect[[Pagename]] rather than deleting them, otherwise you will probably leave several broken links. Another bit of advice - if you approach users in a friendly fashion (such as not telling admins how to do their job, or not asking "Have you even..."), you are likely to recieve a friendly reply. Regards, пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Prohibition-hilarious[edit]

I understand--I do this sometimes too, fix edit errors not really noticing the edits don't belong in the first place.Professor marginalia 17:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation page edits[edit]

Please familiarize yourself with the Manual of Style regarding disambiguation pages. Entry links for the disambiguated term (though not necessarily links that appear later in an entry) should be unpiped (except for formatting for titles etc.). Yes, there are many counterexamples, but these are incorrect and require cleaning up. Regards --ShelfSkewed Talk 13:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you're reading MOS:DAB, but your interpretation, as evidenced by your edit to Union Jack (disambiguation), is incorrect. Piping is not allowed on the link at the start of the line (except, as noted earlier, for formatting). If you are really determined, as you seem to be, to have your betting terms at the start of each entry, then you can also create redirects for them. For example Union Jack (bet) as a redirect to [[Glossary of bets offered by UK bookmakers#Union Jack]]. --ShelfSkewed Talk 19:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
You pointed to this: "Exceptions: Use piping if you are linking to an anchor point on the target page."
But look at the section on URL anchor notation and the examples there. The exception only applies to secondary or "part of another page" links that do not appear as the first word in the entry; it does not apply to piping the term being disambiguated (in the present case, Union Jack) to a page that is not called by that term. That is, piping Union Jack to [[Glossary of bets offered by UK bookmakers#Union Jack]] is incorrect; piping "a bet offered by UK bookmakers" to that anchor is correct. --ShelfSkewed Talk 22:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Even if your interpretation were correct, there's still nothing in the guidelines that allows you to pipe the primary disambiguated term to a page with a different name. And your interpretation of "may not" is erroneous; in this case, "may not" does mean "can not" (American usage, perhaps?). With all due respect, I've been working primarily on dab pages for the past several months, even "apprenticing" myself, so to speak, to another editor who has a great deal of experience in WP disambiguation. The guidelines on this issue may be poorly written, but I know how they are intended to be applied and how they are in fact applied by other editors who work on dab pages. I hate to come out and say, "I'm right and you're wrong," but that's the way it is. Even if I were to agree to structure the link your way, eventually another editor would come along and correct it. --ShelfSkewed Talk 02:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Lucky bets[edit]

My thinking was that people looking for those things would not search just "Lucky"--they'd search the exact terms: "Lucky 15", "Lucky 31", or "Lucky 63". It's a judgement call, admittedly--not a hard and fast decision. If you'd really like to see them on the dab page, I think we should cover all three by creating the page Lucky (bet) as a redirect to [[Glossary of bets offered by UK bookmakers#Full cover bets with singles]]. The dab page entry would be: "Lucky (bet), three types of bet offered by UK bookmakers". Does that work for you? --ShelfSkewed Talk 19:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, although my predilection is for simplicity, they're close enough to the dab term. I've restored the section to Lucky. --ShelfSkewed Talk 19:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Terra[edit]

Thank you for your comments! I replied on my talk page, expanded the quotation and substituted "also" with "as well" in Terra Securities scandal. Oceanh (talk) 00:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC).

WikiProject Futurama[edit]

Hi, I see you have recently made a large number of edits to articles related to Futurama. I wanted to invite you to check out the Futurama WikiProject, a group dedicated to improving the coverage of Futurama related topics on Wikipedia. We're always looking for people with new ideas on how to make the articles better so please check out the project and consider joining. If you have any questions about how you can help out just check the to-do list or ask on the talk page. Stardust8212 13:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Just another note, I see you're following in User:Bobby H. Heffley's footsteps and converting the th in 20th to a superscript. While this may seem like a good idea it actually goes against Wikipedia's manual of style. I'll fix some of them when I have time but I recommend reading through the manual of style on numbers and dates before making any more such changes. Thanks! Stardust8212 19:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Well if they were Futurama articles somebody else was going through and changing them all earlier this week, which is what prompted me to go look it up in the first place because I wasn't sure myself. Good luck and keep up the good copy editing. Stardust8212 20:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

RE: look before you edit[edit]

First of all, I did look before I edited. I knew that I was not reverting more than a paragraph break. Please assume good faith. I made the edit because it looks better with the break. Secondly, it doesn't save 5 bytes every time someone saves an edit on the article. That's not how the inner workings of the wiki system operates. The entire article isn't saved every time someone makes a save. Wiki software keeps track of changes without having to do that. Your revert of the break alone took more than five bytes, so the net space saved by your edit is a negative, not to mention this exchange between you and me. But all of that is beside the point and an overreaction on your part. I agree I should have made an edit summary, but there were reasons for my edit. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No apology needed. I was wrong in not including an edit summary. Actually I personally can see a difference with the break inserted, but it's not that important in any event. BTW, DCGeist was simply following Wikipedia's Manual of Style regarding varieties of English. Since Wikipedia is worldwide, we have to have those policies so one version of English is not given preference over another. Ward3001 (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Two Pints...[edit]

Just to let you know that while looking at these articles last night, I found that much of the character descriptions are actually copyvios, so I intend to remove & recast those. Also, they are written too much "in-universe", and I will address that issue as well. Meanwhile, good luck beating off the fancruft pushers. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering why you think final ep of s6 is non-canon- it follows on from the narrative and is not on the same footing as the extraneous "When Janet Met Jonny", or (although usable as a source for commentary) the "Three's Outtakes" "Two Pints" special? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. Tricky one with that is that if you regard the episode, or at least some of it, as a "dream sequence", resolved by Janet's waking up in the final minute or so, but then undermined by the appearance of the Jammie Dodger on Jonny's head, it becomes canonical. In support, I'd say it was not shown outside the normal series-episode structure as "When Janet Met Jonny" was, that the final moment was an aberration of some sort, and the fact that all the characters are, in fact (in the fictional world) still alive in series 7, then that episode cannot be taken as truth in the "in-universe" narrative structure. That would keep the Kelly comment valid, but to explain this would require original research. I will think about that. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Rugby in "Two Pints"[edit]

I understand this, but the problem is that if we just link to "rugby", we go to a disambiguation page, so we are stuck with opting for union or league. Having thought about it, my guess is that it doesn't matter very much, the point being that Tim's wife is, er, unusual, even assuming she exists, which is moot. A reader following the link would get this impression, I feel, without the need to go into detail. I'm glad to consider any alternative proposals you may have, and I'd particularly like a reference for the Rentaghost link, but I guess only Susan Nickson can answer that one, and if she's been asked, it hasn't appeared in print/web as yet. Over to you, Cheers. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for considering this; the reason I linked it in the first place was for non-British readers who may not be familiar with the game, not that I think Two Pints has been shown outside the UK anyway. For the moment, to avoid any confusion, I think I'll unlink it on the basis that most UK readers will know what rugby is without having to look it up. I'd be willing, however, to bet that Tim's wife will never appear, but not against you, considering what an expert you are on the mathematics of bookmaking! --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I think we first met over at the bookmaking article; but I'm around for much of the time and, enthusiastic though these younger people are, they do not seem to get some of the limitations of writing an encyclopedia as against a blog or fansite. Ho hum. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

K-PAX[edit]

So why is his name not capitalized? It's capitalized on the cast list for IMDB. Cyberia23 (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

They spell it Prot - capital "P". I didn't mean all the letters are capitalized. It's the character's name and in most cases the first letter is capitalized. If he was an object called a "prot" then it would be lowercase. Know what I mean? I'm assuming it should be spelled with a capital "P" since it's the character's name. Cyberia23 (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what quote you're referring to. It's not a big deal - if it was supposed to be a lowercase "p" then cool. But if someone can verify it that would be better. I just thought it was weird that it's not being capitalized. It's like that in the article about the novel too. Cyberia23 (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

LSST Priory[edit]

Why do you keep targeting my edit to this page? If I'm making an error I'd like to know but as far as I'm aware there's nothing wrong with the edit. Damian805 (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't really understand how Wikipedia can enforce this 'notability' rule. Surely this is subject to the editors opinion? Evidently, if an admin and another editor disagree over somethings notability, the editor will be accused of vandalism and blocked. This seems particularly unfair. All I can tell you is that I found the website somewhere on the internet, and it seemed like a well-used and reasonable source on Wikipedia articles. For the moment I will not revert the edit, however I am convinced of the reliability of the information and will try and find you further evidence. As for this vandalism I have been accused of, this has happened on multiple occasions through no fault of my own. I have recieved numerous messages claiming I have vandalised certain articles, some of which I did not even know existed. Evidently this is due to a security fault and is not due to me setting out to cause trouble. Damian805 (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I found the website on another Wikipedia page, which also contained a similar award. Upon checking the linked website, several awards of this type were on the relevant Wikipedia pages. However, LSST did not have this award on their page, and so I thus added it. However, I have sinced checked those Wikipedia pages that I found the awards on, and they have been removed. I now realise that Wikipedia does not accept 'spoof' awards as being worthy of inclusion - I do not agree with this, but I accept that I should in future be aware of this policy when editing. Personally, I do feel that any award should be acceptable, as long as it is not given with bad intentions. I did find the site a bit odd, but I have seen some charities before which are run in a similar, eccentric manner, usually due to the nature of the founder. However, it would seem that the site probably is a spoof. If I can find evidence that it is not, then I will inform you later. As for the vandalism, I am pleased to tell you I have found the source. After interrogation, my little brother admitted to vandalising Wikipedia, and evidently I had not logged out of my account. I will make sure that I do so in the future to avoid this sort of confusion. Thanks. Damian805 (talk) 19:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


Franz von Werra[edit]

My apoligies, I didn't realise it worked like than. Bevo74 (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I'm just glad I didn't start changes eslsewhere. Bevo74 (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


Stabbo[edit]

Yes, I live in Stabbo, have done since 1999. So not a native, but I quite like it. Bevo74 (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The whole nine yards 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:
  • in a play(s))). After 3 Downs (3 unsuccessful attempts to achieve a total of a 10 yard gain )) the ball is still only marginally forward of the initial line of scrimmage (hence still 9+ yards

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)