User talk:Ttiotsw/Archives/2010

Stuff for 2010 here.

Marking edits as minor

Could you please ensure that you only mark edits as minor when they meet the criteria? "A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous versions: typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearrangement of text without modification of content, etc. A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. An edit of this kind is marked in its page's revision history with a lower case, bolded "m" character (m)." Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear - I DO NOT mark edits to article pages as minor. I may mark edits to talk pages as minor so please be clear which you are talking about. When I started editing on WP then there were no guidelines to when you should mark talk page additions as minor. I didn't think my understanding of the policies was that wrong but I checked the WP:MINOR and sure enough around 22nd June 2009 this edit [1] adds "talk pages". Prior to that the WP:MINOR did NOT mention talk pages but only alludes to article pages. Thank you for highlighting this. This is great though as ALL my edits on talk pages are now not minor. This is easier for me. Before I have to think about the semantic implications of major verses minor on what I was saying on the talk page. Now its all major. Ttiotsw (talk) 09:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree it's only talk pages. I'm glad if I've made life easier for you. :-) Dougweller (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes. User:MiszaBot III (talk) 01:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have Twinkle at the top of my firefox and I didn't expect it to use that format. It's quite rare I warn people - I mostly ignore minor stuff. I should probably drop TW if it's going to do sill things like that - why can't it automatically check target editor' edit count and question the template use ?. Ttiotsw (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am disputing the pseudo history tag and notice that you have had issues here too. The two editors patrolling the page are not very polite to people who disagree, one has called me a anti christian bigot and the other has called me a liar! A template would have been a warm welcome ;o)89.242.159.206 (talk) 08:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA reassessment of Raëlian beliefs and practices

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Raëlian beliefs and practices/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article you commented on in the past is at AfD

(cut from Userpage) I noticed that you commented in a past AfD discussion of the article Nicholas Beale. It is now back at AfD again, so you might be interested in commenting again (but you are under no obligation to). I noticed that while many editors who commented on prior AfDs in the past were contacted, you somehow were not, so am leaving a friendly note here. Thank you, --Epeefleche (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chilling effect of FAQ

I agree with your assessment regarding the chilling effect of the current FAQ at Christ Myth. It does not represent consensus. You can quote me on that freely as a editor of that article for many years. jbolden1517 ^Talk 11:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Available for Interview?

Hello, Ttiotsw.

Forgive me please if this request, both in content and format, breaks all sorts of rules and conventions of WP -- I'm just not familiar. I am wondering if you would make yourself available for an anonymous interview that may or may not develop into an article for a local group (I would be surprised if more than 500 people ended up reading it). I haven't followed your work on WP for long at all; my interest is based on the convergence of several topics in you. To name three: Atheism vs. Islam as opposed to Christianity vs. Islam, Wikipedia as Logic and Truth, Allocation of Personal & Political Time.

We could conduct the interview over email or Skype. Email would be much slower of course, but you don't seem to mind writing.

You can reach me at darrylharb@gmail.com. Thank You. Darryl.harb (talk) 16:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]