User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (10)
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) (most recent)
Thank you for offering to help. I am trying to move the entry "Mandrake Linux" to "Mandrakelinux" (its new name) but the move is refused because a "Mandrakelinux" entry already exists (it's a redirect to "Mandrake Linux"). If you could please make the move and then change "Mandrake Linux" to redirect to "Mandrakelinux" I'd be very grateful.
- Yama, 2004-06-09 15:57 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm not posting properly. Firstly I want to thank you for your nice message and for reverting my mistake. The reason why I want to move "Mandrake Linux" to "Mandrakelinux" is that MandrakeSoft has changed the name of the distribution to "Mandrakelinux" for legal reasons. I was about to add a section explaining this but you intervened before I did so.
- Yama, 2004-06-09 13:15 (UTC)
Hi. I would like to talk to you about a change you made to the Lesbian page that put back a line that I took out. I removed the line "This is generally not the case; exclusively lesbian women are not interested in having sex with men." because while I believe it is true, it is not really relevent to the section (Pornography and male preconceptions about lesbians) where it was contained. I also think that it is an old sterotype, and to most people it is pretty obvious. It would be like saying "Vegans are not interested in eating meat".
So as not to completely lose the point, I also changed "some men have the belief" to "some men have the mistaken belief".
How would you feel about taking the line back out again? Michael L. Kaufman 01:49, May 31, 2004 (UTC)
- I did miss the "mistaken" addition, I'm sorry. But perhaps it serves to underscore that the point that the view is mistaken is a bit "lost". And I do agree with you that the sentence as it stands is a little tautological, so I'm going to change it to just "this is not generally the case".
- I think that serves both purposes without being overt, and I hope that works for you too :) Dysprosia 04:28, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. Michael L. Kaufman 21:19, May 31, 2004 (UTC)
Dysprosia, thanks for compliment on my talk page.
Sydney isn't a suburb - it's a city. I think you're referring to the Sydney CBD or what americans would call the downtown, or what I'd call the 'city'. It does have a postcode, but can't be accurately referred to as a suburb. Mainly because it's definining characteristic is that it's a mercantile centre (financial and sales), rather than a popluated area (which it is these days, too). Suburbs such as Surry Hills or Ultimo impinge upon it, and may soon become part of it, but for the moment they're a different animal.
I'm also not sure if the Rocks counts as a suburb, rather than an area of the CBD like Chinatown.
Nonetheless, I'd hate to go back and forth on the Rocks page, so I leave it to your judgement.
- Tried to clarify. You may want to look at List of Sydney suburbs - there are a lot of localities there that I think aren't suburbs, but I never completely back-checked them yet. Dysprosia 13:15, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up headlines on my "Melt-Banana" article, it looks a lot better now, and that was my first full article. Thanks!
Idolcrash 02:18, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the movement and clean-up of several articals I've edited and/or written. I'm starting to rely on you cleaning up things I miss, so I guess I should at least wave and smile once :)
--Bluefox Phoenix Lucid 00:03, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
Thank you. I didn't actually write the article "A Separate Peace" (I had to think why you wrote me about that), but there was so much that needed typesetting and wikification that I missed it. God bless you, and have a great day! DavidA 16:44, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the speedy deletion! I'll keep the page in mind for the future. - MGM 09:54, May 11, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up my articles! I'm still quite new at this thing. - Random Guy
Wow, that was the fastest deletion ever. LOL. YSL.
Nat 07:34, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
I am really offended at the removal. Either you list all, or none at all.
Also, Sacix has some quite wide goals, as to popularising the Debian + Gnome combination in Brazil. --LeandroGFCDutra 14:25, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
Once again, mighty thanks for correcting my stuff. -Random Guy
Hi Dysprosia, I saw that you left a Tip on my talk page regarding writing full sentences to describe an album, but I am unclear whether your advice was for a specific article that you have noticed. It may be that you have noticed an edit that I have made to a page from the list Needs infobox or Incomplete infobox pages that User:Scudlee and myself are trawling through at the moment in the hope of reducing the basic information required to fill the albumboxes. At present whilst clearing these lists I only make minor edits to the article when I happen to notice something incorrectly written. Once we have cleared this list (sometime during the next month) I will be concentrating on looking at the articles themselves to see where improvements can be made. Please feel free to send me any advice you deem helpful as I gratefully receive any input whatsoever. Scraggy4 10:48, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, you may be able to help me now. The page Die for the Government was previously at Die For The Government but I need the the page history moving which I am unsure how to do. You would then see that I didn't originate the article, but there were many links to the differently named pages which is why I tried to tidy up all links to the correctly titled page. Could you possibly move the page history from Die For The Government ????? yours hopingly Scraggy4 11:42, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
- Done it. I think we have to wait for the database or something to catch up, current edits aren't restored properly yet. Dysprosia 11:52, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
- many thanks Scraggy4
this is the first time iv'e used "talk". thanks for saying how good my article on 'william does his bit" was. about the formal writing tip, the reason i dont do it so formal, is because that usually i like to take my own time to complete a page, and i add bit by bit, then clean it up. usually others clean it up before i get round to it, but thanks anyway. User: Atomius
Hi. Thanks, its nice to feel appreciated ;). Morwen 17:11, May 17, 2004 (UTC)
Dysprosia: Thanks. I hope to stay and contribute to wikipedia. I am still learning various things on how to use wikipedia. - Ramakrishnan User:Gnu
See also vs Related articles
I think "Related articles" is more apropriate because
- Most articles have some sort of link list at the bottom of the article
- link should be divided into internal vs. external links
- "See also" does not indicate that the links are internal (pointing inside wikipedia)
- therefore I think "Related articles" is a better wording
- external links should be put under a heading names "External links"
In my other articles I always use "Related articles" to indice internal links. I f you have any better suggestion aside from "See also" I would be glad to hear it. MathMartin 00:04, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
Firstly, the directive to "see also" means almost exactly the same as "related articles". There is no real logical difference of using "related articles", other than the fact that some find the use of "related articles" to work around the restriction that articles linked inline in the text should not be listed under a "see also" section.
In the article concerned, none of the links in the "Related articles" section were linked inline, so, in the interests of maintaining consistency ("see also" is far more common in articles than "related articles"), it was changed. Dysprosia 00:07, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
Ok. I just read the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#See_also_and_Related_topics_sections for the first time. It says there "See also", "Related topics" and "Related articles" are all considered valid. If you say "See also" is used more often I will use this heading in future articles. But it should be made clear in the style manual that this heading (for internal links) is preferred. MathMartin 00:19, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
The actual use of "related *" is being discussed. It appears that the use of categories in the next software version may make the use of those headers redundant. Dysprosia 00:21, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
I just skimmed the discussion. Seems to complicated for me. If you say "See also" is used more often I believe you and will use the heading in the future. MathMartin 00:33, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
Hi Dysprosia. Can you please explain to me why you keep removing the math markup on Integer (computer science)? Surely the extra semantic meaning this gives to the wiki text is important? The math markup in this case is translated to html by the wiki parser (and still uses <sup> tags etc.) so it makes no difference to the browser and makes a significant difference to the article. If you feel that things are not being displayed properly by the math engine then you should take it up at Wikipedia:TeX requests (for example, I agree that minus signs should be rendered as an html element rather than a hyphen and have just made this suggestion at Tex Requests). --HappyDog 01:02, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
- I only did it once. There may be a minor problem in that with some settings the 2^n will always render as a PNG which will look ugly, but it's not such a big deal. If you feel strongly about it, by all means, continue to use it. Dysprosia 05:21, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
I think it's a very good idea to make this semantic distinction, but I don't feel particularly strongly about it in any practical sense. I am aware that when these codes are rendered as a PNG they often look ugly, but that is a problem with the math engine and is noted on the feature requests page. I'll leave it like it is for now. -- HappyDog 21:41, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
Dysprosia, I noticed on history page how you reverted somebody's attempt to destroy Prettyprint article within a minute after the attack. I was just wondering how were you able to respond that quickly. Does wiki have text analysis software that detects such attacks? Watcher 08:15, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
- The short answer is that I watch RC a lot, and I'm fast ;) I think I was an admin then too, so I had one-click [rollback] capability. No, no text analysis software, just a lot of eyes... Dysprosia 09:07, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
- Interesting. Were you actually reading every new change being made? I thought there are so many of them. Watcher 09:46, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
- Well, I had just edited the article, and was probably interested in what the anon added. I may have watched it, I can't remember. If you watch articles they stick out more in RC (they're in bold). Dysprosia 09:48, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
Good work reverting fuck after some anon wiped it, I was about to do it myself but I'm new and had to look up what the official way of doing it was >8). Wiki seems awesome, and it's nice that it's so easy to deal with vandalism. Lord Shitzu 07:12, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
You wrote: It has been noted that attitudes by most men, in relation to lesbian sex, and its depiction in pornography are usually positive or tolerated, paradoxically in sharp contrast with widespread aversion to images of gay sex.
But is the way that lesbianism is viewed by heterosexual men really all that positive. For most straight men I know it's something of a sex fantasy. This is not positive in my book... -- Graham :) | Talk 09:22, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
- I was trying to get my words in line with the word "attitudes". The word before was "appealing", and you can't really have "appealing attitudes" :) Let me try and fix it. Dysprosia 09:25, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing rapidq_programmin_language, from rapidq. Now how do I delete RapidQ?
- You don't :) Leave it as a redirect. Dysprosia 00:06, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
Nice work on rewriting the article. Much, much better now. Dpbsmith 12:35, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks a bunch, Dpbsmith :) Dysprosia 12:40, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
- I usually don't like to list myself on lists, but I'm okay with your addition :) Dysprosia 04:28, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
Try to be bit more careful with Categorization, (make sure you really read the page above)
Tosha 22:58, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
- That's not very specific. If it's the point I think you're trying to make, I think I have a way around it. Dysprosia 22:59, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
- It didn't work :/ The software should show articles in subcategories on the parent category's page, which is important, but I won't do that any more. Dysprosia 23:03, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
Hi Dysprosia, is this how I comment here? I hope I don't delete your page or something but this seemed to be the way to do it. Anyway, thanks for the welcome. I've been browsing Wikipedia for ages (mostly as a way to actively procrastinate) and decided I could contribute something. And you got it right, I'm from Randwick. How did you guess? :D --Randwicked 18:24, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
my dear fellow, it is most awful that it is me that has to bring this about, but on cityrail maps the terminal stations do not have the word terminal in the name. only domestic and international. please correct me if i looked at an historical map, but i still believe the point i pointed out previously.
- You're probably right, though I needed to word as such temporarily it so to make it completely clear that you were talking about the names of the train stations, otherwise the sentence is not clear. I'll ensure the correct name now. Thanks for pointing it out (to this dear lady, btw ;) Dysprosia 05:10, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Hate to ask after you've done all that work, but where exactly would articles like Oak and Ash (tree) fit? Wouldn't Mathematical Trees or something similar have been better? --Phil | Talk 08:04, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)
- It's okay, I don't mind fixing it if need be. Problem is, "trees" don't cover precisely mathematics, nor computer science. Actually, in retrospect that was rather stupidly short sighted of me. Let me try and fix it. Give me a bit :) Dysprosia 08:51, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
188.8.131.52 is an unrepentant vandal who has made Oscar Goodman his near-singular target for the past month . As such, I removed your 24 hour ban and put a 30 day ban in effect. It may seem harsh, but a month's worth of shorter bans hasn't had an effect, so a longer ban is called for. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:37, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Thanx a lot for the redirect tip!
Aha that's handy now it's on my talk page so next time I don't know how to edit a redirect I will have that there and i don't need to search through ten FAQ pages. Thanx for you exceedingly fast help :-D Wikipedia really rulezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Regarding your message to me of 4 May
My apologies for my late reply—I am often poor about responding to correspondence in a timely fashion, though I do read it.
On "External links" versus "External Links": oops. Noted (and fixed in the cased of stoat).
On section headers: <grimace>. I inserted them because I felt that in the last version of the Wikipedia they made the subsequent line easier to read (and obviously I had not read the appropriate style article). Since with the new version a horizontal dividing line and a carriage return are automatically inserted, my objection is now moot.
DocWatson42 05:18, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Greetings and felicitations. Just a heads up—I intent to be editing the various H articles in the next hour or two to correct the title capitalizations, so you might want to hold off on editing them for a few hours. ^_^ DocWatson42 08:26, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- All done. My apologies for any mistakes. ^_^; DocWatson42 09:10, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- No problem Dysprosia 10:44, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Sorry about using the "Page description file formats" category instead of the more accurate "Page description languages" one. I only used the former because it was the one I saw on the PostScript article. The latter was apparently created while I was in the process of adding the former to articles. I was confused when the Category:Page description languages seemed to be losing articles as I added them! Bad timing on my part I guess. - — G↭a⇅a | Talk 03:47, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Hi, what was the reason for the 'Fuck Mary Kill' article?
- It was listed as a speedy deletion. The article's not encyclopedic. We don't deal in minor topics such as schoolkid games. If you feel strongly about it, I can undelete and put it on Votes for Deletion, but I doubt you'll get a favorable response. Dysprosia 07:07, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I'd like the Votes for Deletion option. I'll abide with however the votes turn out. Thank you. :)
- Ok. Dysprosia 07:10, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I'd like the Votes for Deletion option. I'll abide with however the votes turn out. Thank you. :)
thanks for the help. I just updated that page to test it and was about to revert till you caught it. I didnt think anyone would've viewed it within the 1 minute that the change was there. No harm intended.