User talk:Colenso

Roman Catholic Church
Hello Colenso, welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for taking an interest in this article. I want to apologize to you and explain why I reverted your edit to the lead section of the Catholic Church page. We have had many ongoing discussions about this subject on the talk page and have reached a consensus between editors on how to present this issue. Please go to the Roman Catholic Church talk page and see the discussions both current and prior on this issue. The Roman Catholic Church has not always called itself the Catholic Church. The term "Catholic" was first used several hundred years after the church was founded by Jesus. Before calling itself the Catholic Church, it was just the Church, neither Roman Catholic nor Catholic Church because there was only one church in the world up to then. The terms Catholic and Roman Catholic were used to to distinguish the Church from separations like the Eastern Orthodox and Protestant churches. NancyHeise (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Colenso, the present wording at the head of the RCC page is a compromise, arrived at after thousands of words of argument, debate and reverts. The Church OFFICIALLY calls itself the Catholic Church. (Catholic means Universal) The term "Roman Catholic" was invented at the Reformation and is more often used by protestants or in protestant countries to refer to the Church. Although Wiki rules indicate we should use the more general English name, this is balanced by using the Official name in the heading for accuracy. Any change to the agreed wording simply starts the whole row up again. Xandar (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Trademarks
Please note that ® and TM is generally avoided on Wikipedia, see the wikipedia manual of style section on trademarks. :) —Apis (talk ) 02:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

October 2009
Please remember to mark your edits as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. Abecedare (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. On Wikipedia, there are two sorts of edits - minor and major. If I make a major edit, then rest assured that I always make that clear by not checking the minor edit box. I disagree with you that only changing spelling mistakes and rearranging text without changing the meaning is a minor edit. The main job of an editor is to tidy up what others have written, to state things more concisely, to remove weasel words, ambiguities and the like. These are all minor edits even if the meaning gets changed somewhat in the process. On the "Testing for Sex" Wikipedia page, absurdly misnamed "Testing for Gender", I replaced the weasel words "also loosely called", or some such (I am relying on my memory here) with "erroneously called". Two words become one, and the weasel phrase is removed. Evidently, you consider that a major edit. Sorry - but I don't. User:Colenso - 15:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC) copied from my talk page to keep conversation consolidated. Abecedare (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The message above is a standard template for informing users about the correct use of the minor-edit markup; it represents wikipedia convention and not my opinion alone. See Help:Minor edit for further explanation. Incidentally, I didn't leave the message because of any specific edit at Gender verification in sports, but because many of your edits, including ones that add/remove content, sources and external links are incorrectly marked as minor. By the way, what does "ft" in your edit-summary stand for ? Abecedare (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

ft stands for full text. Again, I have to disagree with you. If I have removed a link it's because it's dead. If I have replaced a link it's because there's a better link -ie one that goes to a primary (or one closer to a primary) rather than a secondary source or a dubious one. In my book that’s not a major edit – it’s a minor one. If you say that I have been marking my edits incorrectly for so long, it seems strange to me that 1. you have only now decided to let me know (wouldn't it have been better the first time you believed that I had over stepped the mark?); 2 that you are the only person to call me out so far on this after many hundreds of edits.

I'm quite happy to leave all my edits unchecked if that's what most other editors want. Personally, I don't want to be notified over every change that someone else makes to my work. If it's changed it's changed. Life is too short to get in a stew over such trivial issues. User:Colenso - 15:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC) copied from Abecedare's talk page to keep conversation consolidated.


 * I didn't remark on this earlier, because yesterday was the first time I came across your edits and took a look at your contribution history. Looking at it I noticed that almost all your edits for the past 4-5 months are marked as minor; most correctly, some not. Examples of incorrect markup include, , , , , (Note: I am not saying any of these edits are wrong).
 * Also, "leave all my edits unchecked" is the other extreme, and frankly a strawman that neither wikipedia consensus nor I prefer. That said, marking edits incorrectly, especially in good faith, is not a grievous flaw; that is the reason I suspect no one informed you of the error before. I too am not going to press the issue anymore - you are free to follow the convention, or not. Happy editing.Abecedare (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)