Andy.hyc

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Andy.hyc, 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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 07:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Minor edit button and also using edit summaries

Hi there! Thanks for all your fixes at Dadeland Mall! Here are a couple of instructional templates to give you some pointers on making collaboration easier.

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Dadeland Mall, 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.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Dadeland Mall. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you.

Thanks again for your hard work improving the encyclopedia! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 17:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Eli, thanks for the tips, new here so still trying to sort out all the rules! For future reference, could you please let me know which of the changes I made to Dadeland Mall should not be considered "minor"? I may have missed something, but as far as I can see, I made three changes to the page:
1. Moved "coords" from bottom of page to mall infobox (bullet #3 on Help:Minor edit);
2. fixed/added two references (bullet #6)
3. changed a factual error wrt GLA (bullet #4).
Thanks again! —Andy.hyc (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem, glad to explain!

• Yes indeed, moving the {{coord}} template and and fixing the existing citation do in themselves count as minor edits.

However…

• The square footage is not an obvious factual error as per the 4th bullet
• A new citation is not minor per the 4th bullet in the "When not to mark an edit as a minor edit" list
• Removing Dadeland from the location field and the "building_costs" infobox field alltogether are not minor per the second point in the "not" list.

This is not to criticize your edit itself in any way, it most definitely improved the article! The edit summary and edit button are ways for us to collaborate better - using them right just improves that collaboration for the betterment of the project. I do hope I've addressed you concerns and questions, please do let me know if I can be of further help! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 21:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Ahh ok, I see where you're coming from now. I saw the same reference (Simon Property Group) from the same website already there, and didn't realize that linking to another section would be considered "new". Noted! As for removing "Dadeland" and "building_costs", I don't think either removed content in the article, since Dadeland is already repeated in the first line, and "building_costs=" was just an empty field.

Technicalities aside though, I generally just try to follow in the spirit of rules such as minor edits. All of the small changes (such as the square footage factual error) were either indisputable or superficial. ie. they did not really require a review.

But I'll definitely take your comments into consideration for future edits. (and the positive tone is appreciated :)

— Andy.hyc (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)