User:Pzavon

I noticed that you removed the infoboxes from the BUSPH and the Boston University College of Arts and Sciences articles. I placed a little notice in the discussion sections to see if other people found the infoboxes helpful or not. I was thinking that you might not have noticed that the infoboxes were not cut and pasted from the BU article, but rather had information that was pertinent to the school. If you did notice that the infoboxes had information that was different (and not in the articles themselves in some cases), then what was your reasoning for the deletion? Thanks! Cmcnicoll 05:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You answered a question about how to revert a defacement. Thank you. --SandManMattSH 01:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

About my edit on Abdominal Thrusts, I feel that its a lot eaier to read when it brings the reader into the writing. The other person, although trying to make it 3rd person, sort of made it hard to read. Sorry about not responding earlier. Master Thief-117 04:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply to user:Seicer

It is a notable event and isn't breaching WP:NPOV. In fact, removing it from the historical aspect (which was debated a while back) would be considered not presenting all sides of the story. It is also an article directly relating to Cincinnati as a city, therefore it should remain hyperlinked from the main page. Unexplained content removals, especially ones with such assertions that the user can claim rights over editing, is considered vandalism and was appropriately dealt with. As such, there is no ownership of articles. IF you want to debate this further, you can set up a request for comments, but I consider this case closed and will continue to deal out vandalism warnings before going to WP:ANI. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Shel Israel Article

--User:Shmuelpro I saw you added the need of citations for this article. All the information I got from an interview with him which was not posted anywhere. how do I add that? text added by User:Shmuelpro on 13 June 2007

"Original research" is not appropriate for inclusion in the Wikipedia and I believe an interview conducted by you would be original research. If it was an interview you saw somewhere but it is not posted or published, then perhaps you can do a bibliography-like entry for it, but I don't know if that would meet the Wikipedia criteria. Perhaps another editor will know.

If source references are not available, that is an indication that the article is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Pzavon 01:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Commonwealth Avenue article

Hello Pzavon, small capitals are used to limit the disruption of text. Full capitals do not compliment lowercase and introduce great contrast. Small capitals limit the disruption of texture and reduce disruption of the reading process.

You reverted most of my edits on the text, most of it edited to sound more like spoken language, for wiki MoS, or, for better grammar and structure. The article was rife with bad grammatical structure and poorly organized. In future please try to include an edit summary explaining why your changes. Your first rond of edits that reverted most of my edits had no edit summary. Thanks. CApitol3 (talk) 03:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment that my edits were more like spoken language. They were intended to improve clarity, in part by minimizing unnecessaryly long words and phrases when shorter would do just as well. This is called "copy editing" and that is what I put in the edit summary. I see no value in trying to describe each such alteration specifically in an edit summary.

With regard to use of capitols, the use of capitols in acronyms for proper names is quite normal. I've never seen small sizing such as you did in that context. "MBTA" is the standard acronym for that organization and is properly tied to the next several words as a single phrase. Making the four letters smaller places undue visiual emphasis there. I will again remove your smaller HTML coding.

If the article is "rife with bad grammatical structure" change it. That's what I was doing with your edits. Pzavon (talk) 03:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Brr, it's cold in here. Lighten up! Although I agree entirely with Pzavon.

Thanks for helping me shore up the Silber article. --Bud (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)