"

 Klipsch cite  

 Klipsch cite  

Hello. I'm curious about your edit here, which removed a ""citation needed"" tag and was marked as a minor edit (and which someone else subsequently reverted). I can probably find the hard copy of the magazine — the Stereophile web site is no help — but wondered if I was missing something. —   

 It scarcely seems worth the trouble  

The article's mention of Stereophile is all that's needed, but there are folks who drift around Wikipedia hanging tags on this and that, wouldn't know a proper citation if they stubbed their toe on one — and generally do nothing of any use. —   

 I won't disagree, especially with the latter part. And thanks for making me laugh! In all seriousness, though, please don't mark such edits as minor; it's a function that serves no use on the watchlist when established editors do that. Cheers, —   

 minor edits  

This is an area of which I'm ignorant. I consider most of what I do to be minor. What problem does it cause when I don't mark as major certain edits, and what sort of edits are they that can cause problems? —   

 Given the disputes that rage daily among Wikipedians, it's well not to forget that what one editor considers minor might constitute a certified Big Deal for another editor. (Remember the aforementioned useless toe-stubbers.) In a nutshell, minor edits are supposed to be edits that no one could reasonably disagree with—e.g., corrections to spelling, grammar, broken formatting or links, or blatant factual errors such as those resulting from typos. Reversions of vandalism also qualify. The default setting, which for reasons I've never understood marks all edits as minor unless one unchecks the box, can be changed in Special:Preferences. Thorough guidance on minor edits is here.If an edit is flagged as minor and it was made by someone with a blue-linked talk page, I generally don't bother checking the diff when my time is limited, because I assume the edit isn't deeply problematic. (There are exceptions, but that assumption has proven correct most of the time.) So it's a time-saving signal that says, ""Don't bother looking. Everything's cool"", but the system breaks down when it's misapplied.Thanks for asking and not being grumpy ;) —   

 "" ... what one editor considers minor might constitute a certified Big Deal for another ... ""  

You took the words (see 9:38 pm, 15 March 2011, Tuesday) right out of my mouth! —   
Oops. I knew that proposal had been made repeatedly, but I missed that discussion. Great minds think alike! —   "