User talk:ShinyGee

Thank you for watching my back
I must have been more asleep than usual when I closed the Filibuster in United States RfD. Thank you for watching my back. B.Wind (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome. I figured it was something simple like that.  Cheers!  —ShinyG 08:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Darkfight (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Did not appear to be constructive? What is your script talking about?  I was reverting potential vandalism... —ShinyG 21:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I assumed your edits were intending to introduce 'spelling mistakes', sorry about that, please ignore this. Darkfight (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. I figured a script had done it on its own...  As far as the spelling 'mistakes', that's why the quote has a  [sic] next to it.   I still think something will need to be done about Template:c_quote.  It seems like its sole purpose is to allow vandals to introduce a space in an otherwise legitimate  to display their own text instead of a blockquote. —ShinyG 21:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

United States v. Ballin
Great work on bringing United States v. Ballin up to standard! I have graduated it from the incubator and will submit it to DYK shortly. Thanks for your hard work! --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * See my suggested DYK hook and feel free to comment/suggest an alternate hook. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hook looks good to me. Obviously, I can't vote on it. —ShinyG 07:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the praise. I may now go back into Wikipedia slumber for a while. —ShinyG 07:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of United States v. Ballin at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! (reviewed by )

This review is ballin'
I've started the review here. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The avalanche has started. Thanks!  —ShinyG 21:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Seeing the history of a section
When displaying the edit history of a page, those edits that were done within a specific section are indicated by a link with an arrow within parenthesis, like this: "some stuff is here first ... (→Seeing the history of a section: new section)" (yeah, I brute-forced this example's formatting to display what I had in mind).

So now, on to my question. Is there a way to look at the history of changes made to a specific section? Suppose I want to see the edits related to this section of my talk page, but I don't care about looking at changes to other sections. Right now, all I can think of is to display the whole history and search for the section title, which is fine when there are few changes to other things, but gets messy on heavily edited pages. (This ability would be particularly useful when looking at the thread of changes in pages such as the suggested hooks in T:TDYK, for instance.) While this approach would not show edits that were done to the whole page but ended up affecting the section in question, those changes would become apparent when diffing two revisions that bracket the aforementioned change.

Hopefully I didn't make this question completely unintelligible. Looking forward to knowing! —ShinyG 05:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There's no built-in way to see just one particular section's history, especially because there may be edits or changes to a particular section where the editor didn't use the [edit] link for that section (where they just edited the whole page, perhaps making changes to multiple sections). There's probably a way to write a Greasemonkey script or similar to filter out everything but that one section, but it wouldn't be terribly useful due to the reasons I mentioned. --Darkwind (talk) 05:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh well. I figured as much, but felt best to ask just in case. Thanks! —ShinyG 05:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Or, wait a bit for Liquid threads - shouldn't be long now.  Chzz  ►  05:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That looks very promising. The reason I want to look at the history of a section all together is that many times the edit summaries are a good enough rough-cut of the conversation.  More importantly, a quick way of finding a section in the history would be useful when searching through old revisions of pages from which a section has been deleted.  Thanks for giving me some hope! —ShinyG 05:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikiblame is a very useful tool for that sort of thing.


 * You might also wish to participate in Strategy Wiki - they're very interested in this sort of discussion.  Chzz  ►  06:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)