Well, here, let's talk about me for a sec.
While I appreciate the little steps to correct strictly necessary format and link issues (the 'contributor' block needed moving but I kept forgetting to do so, and 'Convention staff' really did seem a goofy category) I'm not so sure about your more vague taste-based changes, especially given the errors in them. If you have specific comments about confusing wording, that's one thing, but I'd like to ask you to refrain from style imposition otherwise.
Now... what precisely do you intend by the notion of 'paragraphs rather than bullet points'?
- First off, please do correct any errors. My intent was to tidy the wording and make it clearer. Clear, readable, reasonably formal are strong elements of the style here.
- For example, I changed "is credited as the designer of many printed publications" to "has designed various printed publications". If you are credited as the designer, presumably you designed (or were one of those who designed) the publications.
- Paragraph rather than bullet points means precisely that: the article should be written in full sentences in paragraphs, not split into sentence fragments and bulleted lists (point form). -- Sine 23:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- I can look at the wording. You make an interesting point about the 'has designed' bit, and after I revert I'll fix a couple instances of that. Removing relevant information about the name "Electric Keet" is right out, however. I also must disagree on the issue of lists; where I use them, I think it's clear that the information would be a muddled mess in paragraph format. — Tracerj 23:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)