|This user is lazy and may not respond swiftly to queries.|
Start a new talk topic.
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any threads with no replies in 7 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
Curious as to what sort of annoyance (and annoyance to whom) justifies/ed removal from the public record?
I've seen many edit summaries I consider annoying for various reasons. Should I start bringing them to your attention? Spelling 'annoying' "annoyinng"(sic) might be irksome to some for instance ... ;-) ... but personally I find typos pretty trivial and readily forgivable.
Jesting aside, I really am curious what happened. 'Twas an anomalous/puzzling entry to come across. A bit of elaboration would be appreciated.
- It was character spam that screwed up the layout of the page's history. I could have selected RD3 from the dropdown box but I figured "annoying" is more accurate and that nobody would really even care. And yes, Closedmouth (talk) 07:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC) and I didn't catch the typo before pressing submit. --
- Thanks for clarifying. Makes sense now. In hindsight—20/20, and all that—perhaps an edit summary of "edit summary hidden (character spam)" would have communicated better as 'annoying' without elaboration can come off a bit capricious. Thank you for responding, --Kevjonesin (talk) 07:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Template talk:Short pages monitor
You may be interested in the discussion at Template talk:Short pages monitor#Need to define and possibly rethink this template. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)