Old talk in archive: User talk:Dysprosia/Archive -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (2) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (3) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (4) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (5) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (6) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (7) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (8) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (9) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (10) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (11) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (12) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (13) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (14) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (15) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (16) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (17) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (18) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (19) (most recent)

Is this where one writes comments? I feel like I am defacing something. Anyway, I think your recent edit to Homosexuality is a mistake arising out of a misunderstanding. The "arguments" sections was not "NPOV" "desperately needing revision" but a compendium of arguments historically used in the debate pro and con same-sex love. You have replaced that with a wordy paragraph including many of the arguments but embedding them in (forgive me) verbiage, which obscures the simple clarity of the original presentation. May I suggest that if you have new material to contribute to that section you place it in the leading paragraph and leave the list as it was? Better yet, in what is a crowded page, keep those additions to a minimum and place any non-essential material in the main article, linked to as the head of the section. Thanks, Haiduc 12:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes.

No, I don't believe so. I do understand that the arguments there are supposed to represent arguments by others, but even so, the way they were written was not clearly qualified in an NPOV manner (the points were merely stated without clear attribution, in my opinion).

Regardless and secondly, a simplistic outlining of bullet points is absolutely inferior to a proper discussion of the arguments. The section as it stood did not even attempt to explain the points listed even briefly. I'd like to think discussion of topics and ideas on Wikipedia consist of substantial treatment (even though it may be a mere lead section for a greater article), and not consist of bullet points and inelegant divisions into "pro" and "con".

Dysprosia 12:22, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pretty-printing

I removed the section on text formatting (a.k.a. word processing) from the prettyprint article and explained my reasoning on the Talk page. Text formatting is an important and wonderful thing, but in my experience, the term "prettyprinting" is not used for text formatting as done in WYSIWYG word processors or off-line formatters like WikiMedia or TeX. You reverted my deletion. I'd appreciate it if you'd explain your reasoning in the Talk page, not just in a short edit comment. Thanks. --Macrakis 13:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You did not make it clear that you made a comment on talk, otherwise I would have not reverted that change (Usually it's customary to comment reasoning for large changes/removal either in the edit comment or mention that you made comment on talk in the edit summary). I'm sorry, however. I'll revert back, and we'll discuss this on talk. Dysprosia 13:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response... see the Talk page. --Macrakis 15:10, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apollo 8

I saw your comment for the International Writing Contest about the acronyms not being explained until a couple of sentences after first being used. Could you show me where this is? It is hard for me to see as I'm an Apollo nerd so so what TLI, CSM, LM, AGC, S-IC all mean :-). Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:29, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Sure. "Planning" section: CSM, LM. "Launch and trans-lunar injection" section: S-IC and S-IVB. I think there was another instance but was repaired from the version I saw. Thanks Dysprosia 00:32, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mel Etitis

Yes, saw it thanks, Dysprosia. It's fixed. Best, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:09, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

why so negative?

Who stole your milk? The reason I removed the Goldberg variations reference was that this was by no means the only or most significant improv that J.L. has made. But anyway... Dewet 16:59, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)