User talk:Tucci78
Welcome!
Hello, Tucci78, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Will Beback talk 20:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Minor edits[edit]
Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Will Beback talk 20:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- PS: You may have checked the "mark all edits as minor" setting in your preferences. "Minor" edits are those that make no changes to the content, and your contributions haven't all been minor. Will Beback talk 20:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- To be perfectly honest, I haven't considered any of my recent edits as having been anything but "minor." In combing-out Dr. DiLorenzo's page, for example, I simply bulleted the list of books provided by some earlier editor, drawing upon his Loyola University Web page to source the information (which ain't such of a much), fixed a broken link, and clarified the fact that he has done some considerable work of late in the line of historical revisionism, to which (it seems to me) his earlier efforts in political economics had quite naturally and inexorably led him. None of this really rises beyond the level of desultory fiddlework.
— Tucci78 (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)- False modesty is out of place. Wikipedia has a standard definition of "minor edit" and its one that doesn't change content or meaning. So it would encompass spelling corrections, format changes, or small copyediting effort. That's spelled out in the template I posted above. For example, these are not minor edits: [1][2][3][4][5]. It's just one of the (too many) conventions on Wikipedia. Will Beback talk 23:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- To be perfectly honest, I haven't considered any of my recent edits as having been anything but "minor." In combing-out Dr. DiLorenzo's page, for example, I simply bulleted the list of books provided by some earlier editor, drawing upon his Loyola University Web page to source the information (which ain't such of a much), fixed a broken link, and clarified the fact that he has done some considerable work of late in the line of historical revisionism, to which (it seems to me) his earlier efforts in political economics had quite naturally and inexorably led him. None of this really rises beyond the level of desultory fiddlework.
- Hm. Not false modesty on my part. When I've edited academic papers or regulatory documents to any real extent, I've hammered the hell out of them, incorporating whole new sections, pressing marked alterations in conclusions and discussion, even changing the focus of the final manuscript to narrow or broaden the scope of the work. Anything less than that is nothing more than tweaking. If you say that the trivial stuff I've done on the pages you'd cited is considered to go beyond the "Minor edit" level in the opinion of the Wikipedia apparatchiki, then - what the hell - who am I to argue? Seems a bit inflationary to me, though.
— Tucci78 (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)- I understand. But there is a reason. Some editors choose to ignore "minor" edits (it's another setting), and so we're bound to avoid marking any edits as minor with which other editors might disagree. If you're accustomed to academic writing then you may find that some adjustments are needed for editing Wikipedia. ;) Will Beback talk 00:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Hm. Not false modesty on my part. When I've edited academic papers or regulatory documents to any real extent, I've hammered the hell out of them, incorporating whole new sections, pressing marked alterations in conclusions and discussion, even changing the focus of the final manuscript to narrow or broaden the scope of the work. Anything less than that is nothing more than tweaking. If you say that the trivial stuff I've done on the pages you'd cited is considered to go beyond the "Minor edit" level in the opinion of the Wikipedia apparatchiki, then - what the hell - who am I to argue? Seems a bit inflationary to me, though.
Disambiguation link notification[edit]
Hi. In The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Imperial China (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- No, it wasn't unintentional. The original text had mentioned the Incan Empire and the Mongolian Empire without links, and I inserted Wikipedia references to the pertinent articles at those points. When it came to the originator's mention of "Chinese Empires," I found that the only Wikipedia page specifically covering that subject area was the existing article on Imperial China. If you have anything better to offer, please by all means make the change.
-- Tucci78 (talk) 04:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)