User talk:Hoof Hearted/Archive1 - 2011

=— * 2011 * —= Welcome to WikiIndex. Glad you are here and have added Goatopedia. Best, MarkDilley
 * Hi Mark, thanks for the welcome :) Hoof Hearted 01:44, 19 June 2011 (PDT)

Hello
Hi Hoof Hearted, nice to meet you :) --Wolf | talk 03:57, 20 June 2011 (PDT)
 * Hi Wolf, like wise, thanks and regards :) Hoof Hearted 04:42, 20 June 2011 (PDT)

Can you help with this?
Template:Wiki - I want to add Template:Size into it. Best, MarkDilley
 * Hmmm . . . that looks a bit too much for me. If/when I feel brave, I'll have a go in my sandbox, and let you know how I get on.  I'm not promising anything though !  Rgds, Hoof Hearted 02:43, 21 June 2011 (PDT)
 * Hah! been too much for me too. :-) MarkDilley

AboutUs
The edit you made to AboutUs - you made as a minor edit. Any reason that you did it that way? Seems like a major edit to me. Please see my response to you on the talk page. Best, MarkDilley
 * I think, to mark an edit minor was a mistake that can happen quickly in the rush, or is it per preferences? What an odd idea of the MediaWiki developers, to provide such an option! Best, Wolf | talk 12:10, 29 June 2011 (PDT)

Wolf has the answer why it was marked as a minor edit - my preferences are set like that, because most of my edits usually are! And I guess I clicked the save page in haste. But what are the 'ground rules' here for what consitutes a minor vs major edit? Is it the amount of 'content', or the quality of the 'context'? Because my edit on AboutUs was minor in content, but I suppose quite major in context. . . Perhaps we need to copy wikipedias policy on minor edits, and amend it accordingly to suit WikiIndex (unless it is already hiding somewhere on this site!) And I'll head over to Talk:AboutUs and discuss further. Kind regards, Hoof Hearted 12:42, 29 June 2011 (PDT)
 * I think minor means a comma or so. The problem with setting this by default is that this mistakes happen. Most edits are minor to the editor, but a giant step back for mankind! ;) Best --Wolf | talk 12:52, 29 June 2011 (PDT)


 * gotcha! ;-)  MarkDilley

Nice work!
just wanted to drop you a note. Best, MarkDilley


 * Thanks, I hope I'm not making any more n00bie mistakes! Kind regards, Hoof Hearted 01:06, 27 September 2011 (PDT)

My edit
here ... was a test only. I didn't make a screenshot of it, because it would had been too large. I hope this is ok. Best --Wolf | talk 02:24, 27 September 2011 (PDT)
 * I'm confused . . . :/ . . .  Hoof Hearted 03:56, 27 September 2011 (PDT)
 * Maybe the image on the right made the difference - to my Browser? (FF 6.0) - with this last reply by you, there was no problem. --Wolf | talk 04:13, 27 September 2011 (PDT) ps: what exactly confuses you ?

Stargate Wiki
115 times 3 times 7 equals 2415 plus the leftovers on the next page here http://stargate-wiki.org/wiki/Special:AllPages such a thing IS verifiable as you can EASILY access that info.

Well as i created that page and own the freakin' wiki then yes i can manipulate the stats. YOUR edits are unconstructive and biased and seek to misrepresent the wiki. Wiki stats can be hardcored to say theres 50,000,000 pages when there could only be 4, while All Pages does show how many there really are, stats can also be wrong, as is the case with my wiki. As far as I am concerned, your edits appear more to be vandalism. Escyos 05:07, 28 September 2011 (PDT)