User talk:Mindmatrix

DYK for Musical Instrument Bank
Z1720 (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC) 

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

[[User talk:Gerda Arendt#2024|Happy New Year

2024]]

Same location pictured as 2019. - Thank you for the article! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

On the Main page: the person who made the pictured festival possible --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

About your revert edit from mine.
So, I saw your revert edit. While yes, you have a point, but I feel like if this is the general article for astigmatism, it should cover astigmatism in animals as well, but its just that no one has added information of astigmastism in animals yet, as with a LOT of other medical articles that have been seen in animals.

Here, have some official research papers about astigmatism in animals: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18593249/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1810233/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/598274/

I believe these should be cited but I don't have the skill to add them.

Regards,

Just someone who wants more animal coverage on Wikipedia. LoverOfAllAnimalsActivist (talk) 06:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my incorrect Relational Algebra edit
You fixing my edit corrected my understanding of the division operator. Thank you. MrSamples (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Imhotep (board game)
&spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Minor edit notice
Hi Mindmatrix! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph) (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I assume you are referring to this edit, which does not contravene the minor edit guidelines. See Help:Minor edit, one point of which states "Formatting that does not change the meaning of the page (e.g., moving a picture, splitting one paragraph into two—where this is not contentious)" (emphasis mine), which I assume also applies to the converse of splicing paragraphs. I found the separate sentences rather halting. Mind  matrix  23:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mindmatrix I do believe you edited the lead on this one, no? Per WP:COMMONSENSE, an edit that changes the structure of a sentences (such as merging 2 sentences) would not likely qualify as a minor edit, especially if done in the lead. Should you remain doubtful, do please further elaborate on why you believe your edit DOES qualify as minor. Thank you for your attention on this matter. DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph) (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I already stated the reason above, per Help:Minor edit:
 * "Formatting that does not change the meaning of the page (e.g., moving a picture, splitting one paragraph into two—where this is not contentious)"
 * It's the only WP policy that applies here; whether the change is in the body or lead is irrelevant. (At any rate, someone reverted it for consistency with other MLB franchise articles.) As an aside, you don't need to ping an editor when posting on their talk page, the software automatically notifies that editor. Mind  matrix  23:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know about the ping, just please explain why lead editing is irrelevant in minor edit context. DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph) (talk) 00:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Per Help:Minor edit:
 * "A good rule of thumb is that edits consisting solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of the content should be flagged as minor edits."
 * Please show me where in the policy it states that editing the lead should not be marked as a minor edit in this context. Mind  matrix  01:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I can’t, because it doesn’t say. However, that’s not to say that lead reformatting would count as minor if the edit in question is controversial. As with yours, it got reverted. And why would an edit be minor if it got reverted? That’s just it, it’s a rule of thumb. You need to count the other fingers. DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph) (talk) 12:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * An edit being marked as minor and an edit being reverted are independent of each other; my edit was reverted to ensure MLB franchise articles have a matching intro structure, not because I marked the edit as minor. Wikipedia is built by consensus; don't create your own policy. I have cited the relevant policy to you several times, and you have acknowledged you cannot find any aspect of the policy that states what you claim. There is nothing further to discuss. Mind  matrix  01:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m not saying the edit was reverted because it was minor, do please avoid creating false scenarios. I’m not creating my own policy, just stating something out of common sense that your controversial edit is not eligible as minor. It doesn’t say on the policy that you can mark a controversial edit as minor; that would only apply to grammar fixes and vandalism. Ok then, you have a good rest of your day. DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph) (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As indicated above, the policy clearly states "rearrangement of text without modification of the content" is a minor edit. It seems absurd that anyone finds improving sentence flow as controversial, but so be it. Mind  matrix  15:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Except for one thing: it wasn’t an improvement. DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph) (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That, of course, is your opinion, not a statement of fact. In my opinion, it was a clear improvement. Mind  matrix  13:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No it’s true, someone reverted your edit, not finding it as an improvement. In any case, it’s safer to not mark an edit as minor if it may be controversial. Cheers. DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph) (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't make false statements or assumptions about other editors' motivations or reasoning. The edit was reverted with the edit summary "that's the standard in US and Canada sports pages", not because the editor found it controversial or not an improvement (at least, based on the edit summary). And as I've already stated, I did not consider the edit controversial. Mind  matrix  23:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * con·tro·ver·sial
 * adjective
 * giving rise or likely to give rise to public disagreement.
 * I can understand how the misunderstanding that I made where I said : the editor who reverted found your edit as not an improvement. That is my fault. However, it’s not a matter of who thought your edit was an improvement, it’s the fact that it’s not an improvement. It’s not the case of who found your edit controversial, it’s the fact that it is controversial. Although editing without changing the meaning of text can merit a minor edit, another aspect of minor edits is that it can’t be the subject of dispute. That is why edits are allowed to be minor in the first place, so that people know which edits do not require attention and/or may not be a subject of discussion. In this case, your edit you marked as minor, is. Thank you. DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph) (talk) 02:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Canadian Dental Care Plan
&spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 12:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

ChineseRoom
I think you removed my edition to the Chines Room entry. Before removing it again, please contact me. Wikipedia will not let me provide my email address directly but it is pbassett29 at gmail dot com

Thank you, Paul Bassett PS: I contributed the entry on Frame Technology (software engineering) several years ago, but cannot log in now to Wikipedia because of my VPN. 184.148.173.225 (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of AGCO (disambiguation)


The article AGCO (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic article has a hatnote to the only other use."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

DYK for International Register of Electors
RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

diffhist m International Fixed Calendar‎ 01:22 −56‎  ‎Mindmatrix talk contribs‎ (revert - rm per WP:ELNO) Tag: Manual revert thank
Hi Mindmatrix, I would like to know why my modification has been rejected? I think it is a useful link with a concret exemple of what is an 'International Fixed Calendar' and how it works. Could you please explain why such decision? Many thanks in advance, Kind regards, Aballan (talk) 08:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)