User talk:Slightsmile

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

If I left a message on your talk page you can reply here or on your page according to your style.
There's no need to add a talkback as I will be watching your page.
Non Registered Users can leave a message here.

100K This user believes that editors
should keep their talk page
short and sweet.
Veteran Editor III

You have a problem with my edits?[edit]

I don't hesitate to straighten out the amateurish, clunky, convoluted and turgid writing I find here on Wikipedia in abundance. Try reading the before and after and honestly ask yourself if it reads better. Reverting edits wholesale without thinking is a very bad idea. Zedshort (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

... gerund form of verbs makes the writing very clunky tells me that you are a serious editor regarding grammar and style improvements. Making the reading a little smoother. We've all encountered editors who unfortunately waste edits on minor unhelpful details (such as BC BCE). So I don't blame Rolfy or myself for being a bit quick on the assumptions here, especially seeing no edit summaries. Keep doing the good work. SlightSmile 17:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikiproject United States Coast Guard Auxiliary[edit]

As a current or past contributor to a USCG Auxiliary article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject United States Coast Guard Auxiliary, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

COASTIE I am (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

What's wrong with my edits?[edit]

This is regarding the Typosquatting article. I didn't do anything wrong, though maybe the John Oliver examples should be removed. Regards, 104.218.136.34 (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

You removed a section heading for no apparent reason and the edit just looked overall messy. Also, get in the habit of giving edit summaries. I see you reverted me, how about you clean up your edit and put that heading back in. SlightSmile 21:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

October Crisis[edit]

Your justification for reverting my edit makes no sense. All I changed was the part of the text that linked to a page. I changed nothing about who won or whatever you're talking about. Dregkonn (talk) 21:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Webpage[edit]

How do you get all those things that say "this user..."? Characterized (talk) 00:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

ArbCom Elections 2016
Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Slightsmile. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC[edit]

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob13Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))

Happy New Year, Slightsmile![edit]

Fireworks

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

ENO Drugs[edit]

Hi,

Would you please share your views on redirecting the ENO Drugs page to Antacid. I don't understand why Doc James has redirected the ENO Drugs page which is running from 2005 to antacid stating brand to generic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravi Wildnet (talkcontribs) 13:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Usually when articles are small, editors like to merge similar articles into fewer medium sized articles. That makes sense. I just did some tweaking on the Doc's merge and redirect. Take a look now see what you think. SlightSmile 19:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Watchmaker analogy[edit]

Discussion Concluded

Hi, not sure what is going on. Why did you restore an unsourced section in the body? Everything not in the lede requires references and again, if the information is below as the other editor claims, it is redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Whatever your valid reasons, it's almost - not quite there yet but almost becoming an edit war which they don't tolerate here. That's when it's time to take it to the talk page here. You might (or not) be right but I'm not really the one discuss this with. Good luck. SlightSmile 20:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Except you are involved, you reverted a change to an unsourced section, which is also the first section after the lede. There is no edit war and if you want it discussed as an experienced editor, maybe you could add a comment on the talk page rather than just reverting and walking away. Everything not in the lede requires reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
One task editors take on here is patrolling recent changes looking for vandalism or otherwise disruptive editing which I have to be honest yours was starting to look like. We revert a hundred such edits a day and "walk away". You seem to know your way around here, why don't you get an account and see how they do things here.
About your issue in Watchmaker. Unsourced content can be either removed or merely tagged {{Citation needed|date=February 2017}} on a case by case basis. It's a judgment call made by fallible human beings.
My advice to you is just tag it and move on. If it's something you really feel strongly about then you'll have to go to that talk page and make your case. By the way sign your posts by typing four tildes like this ~~~~. SlightSmile 22:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Whether or not I have an account has nothing to do with the quality of my edits or in the enforcement of policy, which you have chosen to ignore. I will tag it so someone else can clean your mess. 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 05:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I've been back for a while.[edit]

You guys are completely useless without my help, after all...

And no, I'm not being egotistical, I have scientific proof. Papers have been written. Theories have been penned. Um... someone saw it in a telescope. HalfShadow

BC/BCE[edit]

So if it's a frivolous issue why do you insist on wasting your time imposing your POV? Note: the original usage was BC in the article in question, then some edit warrior came along to change it to BCE - I referenced the edit. As you'll know, such changes go against the policy of first use, hence my revert. You actually mention the BC / BCE issue in a thread on your talk page from last year, so you appear to have an interest here. For me, whenever I see BCE my first thought is "I bet that was originally BC, and someone with an agenda has come along to change it". Sure enough, that was the case with Philology, hence my entirely valid revert to that original usage. 141.6.11.25 (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Everyone has their pet peeves. Mine is edits for minor details filling up users' watchlist, many of which concern BC AD CE BCE and they start to add up. If I walk away from this, in a month I'll see someone changing it back again the other way. Multiply that by many thousands of articles. Time to draw a line. As I stated there's many ways to participate here. SlightSmile 19:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Just one further remark on what I know is a controversial subject. You suggest that I "don't concern [my]yourself about era style". Please don't concern yourself either. 141.6.11.25 (talk) 12:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I concern myself but thanks for the thought. I agree it's disruptive someone with an agenda going around changing BCs to BCE. Probably someone with an ax to grind about religion. Going around changing the other way, BCE to BC is no better.
You know what. You seem like a serious editor. Make that change at Philology. Maybe make a thread on the talk page first explaining what you said above. All the best. SlightSmile 13:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, and the offer. I won't change the article but I'll put a comment on Talk asking for other opinions (busy at the moment, so I'll do it over the next couple of days). The issue is, of course, minor within the context of the article so it might not get much comment. In which case, time for us all to move on. Thanks again. 141.6.11.22 (talk) 08:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Editing "top"[edit]

I've been here a few years and have never figured out how editors manage to edit the lede as a section "top". How do you do that? SlightSmile 23:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

All I remember was that long ago—more than ten years ago, they made this possible, but you had to change something in your settings to enable it. Don't know if that's still how it works. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. Unschool 13:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Hey I've always wondered this too. You can write the {{Help}} template on your talk page, and an experienced editor will be able to assist. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 19:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Ya know one day I might just do that. SlightSmile 19:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Do you wanna do it now, I don't see why it needs to wait. Or I'll copy this to my talk page and ask someone there. I mean editing "top" can be very useful if it lets you edit only the lead, especially if it's on larger articles that may take longer to load the whole thing. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 19:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.
> How does one edit the lede as a section "top". SlightSmile 19:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
In the "gadgets" section of the preferences there is a "Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page" option. That seems to be what you're looking for. Huon (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Perfect! Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Wadya know it works. Thanks. SlightSmile 21:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)