User talk:Mikeblas/Archives/2008/July

"Minor" edits
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.'  — Hello, Control  Hello, Tony  18:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Out of 15,000 edits, I'm sure you can find a few that are minor but but not marked minor, and were not minor but marked minor. I'm a person, and people make mistakes. I'm sorry you find making mistakes to be poor etiquette. Do you think the edit UI is perfect? -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering that you have to go out of your way to check the "This is a minor edit" box, I don't see how you can blame it on the UI. Going forward it might be best, if you are unsure whether an edit is minor or not (see Help:Minor edit for clarification) that you leave the box unchecked. — Hello, Control Hello, Tony  20:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't see how I can blame the UI because you don't know the UI, apparently. It's easy to check the wrong button when using the keyboard interface to the UI, so it's actually quite easy to make a mistake. Further, it's possible to set "Mark all edits minor by default" in the preferences, so you don't have to go "out of your way" to mark the minor edit box. Further, the UI provides no way to change a saved edit after mistakenly setting (or resetting) the mark in the "minor edit" box.
 * Perhaps I'd have a little more tolerance of your comments if you could explain how it might tangibly matter that I've mis-marked a few edits, and why it matters to you personally so much that you'd set aside the assumption of good faith to raise condescending accusations of poor etiquette. -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no assumption of bad faith on my part and no condescension, either. I was pointing out to you what was happening so you could correct it. You are using a different UI than I am, so please forgive that assumption of mine. Since you are continuing to mark the vast majority of your edits as minor, perhaps you should set the preference you mentioned to not mark all edits as minor by default. From Help:Minor edit: "The distinction between major and minor edits is significant because editors may choose to ignore minor edits when reviewing recent changes; logged in users might even set their preferences to not display them. If there is any chance that another editor might dispute a change, it is best to not mark the edit as minor."— Hello, Control Hello, Tony  14:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of my edits are marked minor because they are minor. A guideline that stipulates marking edits minor based on the chance that someone else might dispute the edit is patently absurd as edit wars on this site have broken out for unforseeable reasons and reversions of plain facts happen hundreds of times each day. You're not really chasing around everyone who made a change, marked it minor, and then had it disputed, are you?
 * If you'd care to offer specific feedback about a specific edit (or, even a specific set) that you think should be differently marked, I'm all ears. Presented with actionable advice, I can try to do better--though an editor who uses an arbitrary and error-prone flag to decide which changes to read is always going to miss reading things they might have wanted to read.
 * If you want to stay on your high horse about etiquettes or remain in denial about your presumptuous attitude, then you're wasting your time. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is readily apparent that you are going to do whatever you want. You should have said that at the onset instead of blaming the UI or user mistakes. I'll be sure to avoid your corner of Wikipedia in the future. — Hello, Control Hello, Tony  17:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me know when you finally read the "all ears" part. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey man! which part you don´t understand?¿ Hello, Control has told simply you have marked as minor, changes that are not minors, and you have begun with a paranoid deffense.

This guys of microsoft...--62.212.122.189 (talk) 13:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Alive Alone
According to WP:MUSIC, Mickey Thomas passes notability without question. He was lead singer of Jefferson Starship at the time! And had been famous for singing with Elvin Bishop before that, and in fact this was the 2nd album he made on a contract with Elektra because of his being known from Elvin Bishop. The album is mentioned in "Rolling Stone's Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll" and in the book "Got a Revolution" about Jefferson Airplane's history written by Jeff Tamarakin. JoeD80 (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, Joe! While Thomas might have been a member of a notable group, all works he releases aren't necessarily notable. WP:MUSIC, for albums, simply refers to WP:N. That is, the work of music in question must be referenced with independent coverage. I'm glad you've added references to the article, as that's what demonstrates its notability. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

micrometer redirect
Hi,

If you'd checked the page history prior to recreation, you'd have seen that it was speedied so that micrometer (device) could be moved over it. Could you please delete the page again so that the move can take place? As a non-admin I can't move a page over a redirect which doesn't point to it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahah! That's why. I've deleted it again. By the way, if you assumed good faith, you might conclude that I read the history, and simply didn't understand it. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry, my bad - I should make my summaries when proposing db-moves clearer. The problem is that "uncontroversial" does not necessarily mean "unambiguous". :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem isn't the edit history; the problem is flaming me about it. I've performed the move, and I've also started cleaning up links to "(device)". Pitch in if you have some time; there might be a few remaining. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That too. Sorry for snapping at you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hall Effect
Hello Mikeblas,

Did my addition of the template satisfy your request on the Hall effect article?

Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, Bob. It helps, but the article still isn't nearly as well-referenced as it should be. Two references for such a large artiocle is plainly inadequate. I've changed the template from nofootnotes to refimprove. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)