User talk:Hyacinth/Edit summary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Request for edit summary

For what? I typically use edit summaries for all but the most minor changes. RadicalSubversiv E 18:40, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I do add a summary when I actually edit article content. Most of my recent edits heve just been categorisation. --Moochocoogle 00:36, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ditto for Edit Summary

What and where? I put thoughtful summaries on all but my most minor changes. Quill 06:45, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Again edit summary

Dear Hyacinth, judging from other's people response, you start by doing a better job yourself. Please explain where I did not put an edit summary. I do put them 99% of the time, as you can see on the list of my contributions [1] Show me the instances when I did not put a summary, please. Oleg Alexandrov 02:45, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And for the last 5 places (if you can find them) where you saw I did not put an edit summary, please check the diffs, and please report if you have anithing to comment on. Oleg Alexandrov 02:50, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the policy I suggest you take it up at Wikipedia talk:Edit summary and not with me personally. Again, thanks. Hyacinth 03:34, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have no problems with putting edits summary. I do a very careful job at that, there are very few exceptions. Now, as you see from the responses you get, people get offended if you just through this accusation in empty air. Please write a candid and thoughtful paragraph, explaining what is going on, refering to the manual of style (as you did, belately), and also please check at least some diffs before lashing at people. Don't be dogmatic, be practical and sensible. If your message stops looking like a random yell, you will not get this kind of upset responses as mine and the several others I see. Oleg Alexandrov 04:09, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please don't fool yourself: just by putting a please and a thank you you will not convince anybody you are a nice person. You did write a nice a polite message, and let me tell you something: each message you write is nicer, more justified, and better explained than the one before.
What you don't get it is that people think your messages are unfair, OK? All people contribute here voluntarily, put lots of care and attention, and honestly, in spite of your "please" and "thank you", your message sounds as follows: "You idiot, don't you know you MUST put an edit summary, even if you change a damn single letter??? You either abide by the manual of style, or you get out of Wikipedia!!!".
Now you might think I exaggerated. But my upset response is not the only one. The burden is with you about how to learn to approach people. Oleg Alexandrov 04:44, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
And please, do check the diffs before writing to people (I know this takes more time). If you are a self-appointed Wikipedia law and order police, at least go after the worst offenders first. And again, with candour. People will contribute to Wikipedia as long as they find it fun. You don't want to be the reason people quit contributing. (And I don't mean to say you don't have a point.)Oleg Alexandrov 04:55, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Truce. Hyacinth 04:55, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Requests for comment#General convention and policy issues. Hyacinth 04:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What? What edit are you talking about? Everyking 03:19, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rply at my talk pg (re ed summary msg)

Hello, re the pointer to the edit summary discussion that you gave me (thanks, btw): see my talk page for the reply -- I prefer to keep threads in one place. --Wernher 18:17, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Edit summary

Which edits in particular need summaries? Oftentimes I'm too lazy for edit summaries X_x WhisperToMe 00:23, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


You put a form letter on Anthere's page about edit summaries? Was that a joke? If not, you might consider actually looking at people's user pages and contributions before such edits -- sannse (talk) 23:05, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That may not be a good edit, but as an member of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, surely she deserves discussion on her edits, not a form letter that insultingly suggests she is a newbie. Actually, I revise that, as a Wikipedian she deserves that - her status simply makes it all the more ridiculous -- sannse (talk) 08:55, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
When it's a form letter that implies a Wikimedia Board member is a newbie. -- sannse (talk) 12:59, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The message you posted was much better - thank you. I'd say that my "repeated complaints" were actually repeated responses to your repeated excuses - but that's a matter of interpretation. *shrug* - nuff said. -- sannse (talk) 09:11, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You are right of course, it's a wiki, which means anything you write may be read and commented on by others. If you don't want that - I suggest using email. But I'm not going to carry on this bickering - feel free to have the last word -- sannse (talk) 14:00, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, I did not have time to let you an edit the other day. I have two comments.

First, when I tried to delete your comment, I just edit *my* page and found out later that I, out of mistake, blanked the entire template. Using a template in such a way is a very bad idea, because most newbies will not realise they are editing a template, while they think they are editing their own page. If they answer by edit sections, they will find themselves editing the template and chance is they are taxed of vandalism when they do so. I found such template use extremely contrary to the very idea of "use wiki, it is very simple to everyone".

With regards to your comment :

Hello. Thought I would drop you another note to first let you know that User:Sannse is throwing your Wikimedia Board member credential around on my talk page in a way I would find embarrasing if I was you, especially since Sannse is complaining about something you never contacted me about. Second, given Sannse's repeated complaints, I thought I would explain that it is extra important to add an edit summary for controversial changes such as your edit to autofellatio: [7] ( Wikipedia:Edit summary: "Even a short summary is better than no summary. Accurate summaries help people decide whether it is worthwhile for them to check a change." Thanks. Hyacinth 21:08, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think you are perfectly right to ask for summaries and perfectly right to remind people of this. Now, forgive me, but using such templates which are certainly very much appropriate for newbies, is however more than ridiculous when you post them on editors pages who have been there for three years. It is more than ridiculous, it is upsetting. It would not give you more time to just right "please, add comments to your edits", than to stick a several paragraphs text of honey. Seriously, read it again. And imagine you receiving it. Sorry, but this is "ridiculous". Best to either use real comments oriented toward someone you know, or best to create another template oriented toward oldbies, or best to reword current template.

So, in short... i absolutely do not question the reason you stick it, you were right I should have commented. What I comment is the nature of the text I received. YOu know, I am less and less on the english wikipedia, and there is a reason for it. Few people know me here now. I joined when wikipedia was possibly 20000 articles and most people leave me messages as if I just joined. This is very strange. But when it comes from people I know, I think it deserves a little more care. I think the english wikipedia has become a huge industrial plant station. Not handled any more from a human perspective. And I regret this. I know templates are very helpful, but they should never make editors feels they are just numbers. You made me feel as if I was a number who just joined the project. I found that very tough. That is all :-) Anthere 06:22, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

the new template ( is just perfect to me. Thanks a lot for doing this Hyacinth. This is much much much better imho. I am pleased. Anthere

Another edit summary query

I got a message from you today about the need to add edit summaries on my edits. After looking at your Talk Page archives, I see I'm not the only person that has been slapped with one of your edit summary comments you seem to randomly send to people. I don't expect a decent response from you, as other people haven't had one, but I would like to say that you are being counter-productive, and I ask you don't waste your time or any more of others' with giving people these messages when they are clearly not deserved or needed. Daniel Lawrence 15:34, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)