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