User talk:Slightsmile

If I left a message on your talk page you can reply here or on your page according to your style.
There's no need to add a talkback as I will be watching your page.
Non Registered Users can leave a message here.

100K This user believes that editors should keep their talk page short and sweet. Tool Shed

Veteran Editor IV

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

Editing "top"

I've been here a few years and have never figured out how editors manage to edit the lede as a section "top". How do you do that? SlightSmile 23:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All I remember was that long ago—more than ten years ago, they made this possible, but you had to change something in your settings to enable it. Don't know if that's still how it works. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. Unschool 13:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I've always wondered this too. You can write the {{Help}} template on your talk page, and an experienced editor will be able to assist. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ya know one day I might just do that. SlightSmile 19:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you wanna do it now, I don't see why it needs to wait. Or I'll copy this to my talk page and ask someone there. I mean editing "top" can be very useful if it lets you edit only the lead, especially if it's on larger articles that may take longer to load the whole thing. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

> How does one edit the lede as a section "top". SlightSmile 19:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the "gadgets" section of the preferences there is a "Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page" option. That seems to be what you're looking for. Huon (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wadya know it works. Thanks. SlightSmile 21:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A subpage of yours

Regarding: User:Slightsmile/Quotes

I absolutely love them!!!! They are the most fantastic and wonderful quotes! Thank you!!! Bloody brilliant! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you I appreciate that. I think they're kinda cool if I say so myself. I've noticed cafe anna since I was new here. SlightSmile 13:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandwiching text between images and infoboxes

Hi, I'm not sure if you're aware of MOS:SANDWICH, but your edits to Tegenaria domestica resulted in classic sandwiching all over the article. Alternate left and right placement looks good, but only works when the sections are long enough so that the images are vertically far enough away from each other. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandwiching. Oh great now I'm hungry. SlightSmile 17:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Angled cross listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Angled cross. Since you had some involvement with the Angled cross redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 08:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I see post from you that is not written to me. But I have possible answer.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-44835628/first-video-messages-from-rescued-thai-boys

Thai Cave Person (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was what I was looking for. Thank you. SlightSmile 19:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saddle shoe

Here is the consensus I'm referring to. Please don't defend lists of random pop culture "sightings." They're junk. 24.7.14.87 (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That wall of words does not constitute consensus. Take it to talk page and get consensus there. I don't know why you're so worried about this. It's a nice clean section and as one editor pointed out it gives the readers a perspective about saddle shoes. There's lots of ways you can make a contribution without being confrontational. I look forward to seeing your good work here. SlightSmile 22:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RFCs are a component of Wikipedia's dispute resolution system and they most certainly do represent editor consensus. WP:CONDD: "Be familiar with policies, guidelines and past discussions." So you can't just dismiss that wall of text; at least read the closing decision at the top of the page. If you're going to urge discussion then I suggest that you not revert the article again without participating in such. I use Wikipedia's search box to find articles needing trivia cleanup and then edit them. This is one article I found. 24.7.14.87 (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, 24.7.14.87. I do hope we can work this out. I must say, by your edits, you certainly do not like those sections. If there is an RfC that broadly prohibits them, please do point it out over at the saddle shoe talk page. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Effect of global warming on Vermont's ski industry

You are invited to offer your perspective at Talk:Vermont#Effect of global warming on Vermont's ski industry. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When did they start being referred to as myths?

In the Adam and Eve article. If they're going to be referred to as "myths," then why not their children Cain, Abel, and Seth? And then also their grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and so on? The descendants of alleged myths are then also, logically, myths as well, no? Shouldn't Wikipedia be consistent? 67.4.76.65 (talk) 02:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay we see the term Creation Myth in the Adam and Eve story but it's not Wikipedia's place to refer to any other parts of the Bible as mythological or any other changes we may deem as logical. An encyclopedia describe religions as they are in their original form and not according to the editors' interpretations. SlightSmile 15:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so just the one part can be referred to as mythological. Makes perfect sense. Not. 67.4.76.65 (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leathercoated Minds

Thanks for your robust (and persistent) attempts to salvage my contributions on that page.

Our "persecutor" obviously lacks elementary literacy skills if s/he cannot grasp the meaning of the expression "bear reference to" as a form of valid authentication of the source of material.

But then what do I know? I only have a Master's degree in Music Technlogy through independent study and research. Who am I to argue with 75.191.40.148?

... and isn't it a further indication of 75.191.40.148's sincerity and authenticity that they have to hide behind an IP address rather than even using a nickname?

Anyway, at least the more savvy reader/researcher can view history on here, and other contributors have now suggested people do this. What do I know about the Leathercoated Minds? Well, apart from having actually discussed the album with Cale face-to-face (Backstage, Hammershith Apollo, after the first of his 1994 gigs there), I was also close friends with Rocky Frisco (Cale's piano player off-and-on from about 1957 thru about 2007) who had had rather more conversation with Cale about the thing than I had had.

While suitable moderation and peer review are always appropriate, I can't help thinking the likes of 75.191.40.148 are, at very least unwelcome, and, in their attitude twoards both of us, insulting and verging on abusive.

Hey Ho. Such is life!

Best regards from England! Pr0t0type again (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pr0t0type again. Thank you for your message I appreciate it.

I agree with IPs contributing to the project - the accumulation of world knowledge. But if they need to address concerns about articles and compliance with the rules then they should join us and get an account. And rule book thumping doesn't live here.

While editors here do their own thing we are ultimately a team and anyone who can't understand that is in the wrong place.

I couldn't get over how the community tolerated 75.191.40.148's combative behaviour.

While I was grateful to the editors who helped bring Bobby soxer where I was involved up to “his highness's” (148's) standards, it left me discouraged and I lost interest in the project. I do the occasional edit but not like before. SlightSmile 17:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]