User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (16)
Orison Sweet Marden quotes
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) (most recent)
nevermind :D - [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 09:46, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
Go team. :-) Evercat 14:02, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Re: Gender role
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with what the term, "SNAG", was created to mean when the Wikipedian entered the word into the article. Since it was deleted, I will bring it here from a somewhat hidden archive:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
More accurately: Snivelling, Neutered, And Gullible.
A man who has fallen for the hype of excessive "sensitivity," and mistakenly believes that totally surpressing his testosterone and personal pride (if any) will somehow make him more desirable to women. This belief is completely disproven by the amount of real jerks (who emphasize their masculinity rather than hide it) who pick up women with ease, where the Snaggies go home alone despite being a better potential life partner (better job, respectful, not likely to be abusive).
Hears "Let's just be friends" and similar "slammer" phrases a lot. Most of his relationships will involve the significant other walking all over him. It's hard to respect a man who will not take his own side in a lover's quarrel, for fear of offending said lover.
Don't be one.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SNAG"
I would think that by judging from the "article"'s content one can easily tell that the entry was clearly rude, offensive, and defametory in nature. Even the word, "SNAG" rudely dismisses androgyny as a disgusting and intolerable facet of society, completely ignoring Wikipedia's Key Policy No. 1: "Avoid bias. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing differing views on a subject fairly and sympathetically" (emphasis added, original here). While under the article, "avoiding common mistakes", Wikipedia does state that one should, if possible, refrain from, "Deleting biased content. Biased content can be useful content (see above). Remove the bias and keep the content", as far as I can tell, there exists no way to remove the bias without removing the insinuating term altogether. If such is not the case, please point this out to me.
- Is there a reason for using \varphi instead of plain \phi? Dysprosia 03:00, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It looks better and is less likely to be mistaken for or Michael Hardy 20:20, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I think straight phi looks better, but fair enough, though neither or are Wikipedia convention as far as I know. Dysprosia 22:07, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
"Needing attention" and similar messages
In cases where someone's entry needs attention or alteration, it would be useful to tell him which article is faulty and what the fault is, so that he is not left needing to search his memory and guess. Anthony Appleyard 06:04, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I got the message about the case that you metioned in your last message; but another time an entry of mine was marked "Needs attention" without saying what the fault was and I had to guess. Anthony Appleyard 06:18, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Review of "Butch and Femme" article
Dear Dysprosia, I noticed that you are one of the editors of the Butch and Femme article, and that you have listed yourself on the Queer Wikipedians site. There is a discussion on the ages-old lipstick lesbian topic going on in the talk page, but all the discussion seems to be by non-lesbians. I'd really appreciate it if you could review the article, and invite any other lesbian Wikipedians to do likewise. -- The Anome 00:11, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
Hi sorry got mixed up and hadn't realised I had knocked the text & image off the Tandey page, which is daft as I uploaded the Tandey Photo and Info to it originally, I also wanted to keep the Photo and Info on the Dukes main page as well. is there any special reason for the double 'the the' in the last sentence on Tandey or is it a small cock up. I'm kind of new to Wikipedia so am still learning the editing rules etc. How can the Blue info box on the Dukes main page be edited to put the title Official Name below the Cap Badge photo I uploaded ( I don't even know how that got there as I originally put it topleft of the page) Richard Harvey 06:23, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
the teresa one was BS, i'll admit that, however there indeed is a penis statue at PA (i am an alumn.) can verify this if needed
- Re-add it a the same time you can verify this on the talk page of that article. Dysprosia 05:20, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- That's odd, I'm also an alum, and I don't recall any such statue, although of course it could have been added in recent years. (The poster should mention where on campus it is.) Anyway, even if true, it's not exactly the kind of thing I think is useful to mention in the article! Noel (talk) 05:32, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Revert of Serialization
You've reverted my changes to Serialization by arguing rv. use original tags (no benefit in switching them), plus don't mark tags where the single-space markup is used (it's done so for simplicity). I disagree with this. The original markup used <tt> and I switched to <code>. The difference is that <code> is a logical markup, that defines the meaning of the marked up text, not a layout markup like <tt>. So it better descibes what really is in the document. That the two render normally the same is not important in my eyes. Regarding the space markup: I would apply the same logic regarding conceptual versus textual markup here.
One more point: Even if my arguments are refuted, you reverted other changes as well, where the code blocks where not contiguous, because lines where empty and didn't start with a blank. You did also loose some changes in the Java section.
--S.K. 10:38, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)