User talk:TreasuryTag/Archives/2008/Nov
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 42 | 8 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 43 | 10 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 44 | 17 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 11:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
General overhaul?
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Please take this to other discussion fora if you wish to continue, I'm resolutely satisfied with the situation as it is now. As, I believe, the vast majority of the Wikipedia community seem to be. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 14:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but summarizing edits like this as a "General overhaul" seems like a real stretch, to me. Edit summaries are supposed to help other editors know what you are doing. Might just as well leave no summary at all as one as misleading as this is. -- Mwanner | Talk 13:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- I was using an editing-tool called AutoWikiBrowser, whose default edit-summary is, "clean-up" - if my summary is misleading (and it really isn't...) then so is the default, and so the correct place to bring up your concern would be the software talkpage. The reason I don't just leave no summary at all is that to leave one (including this) is more helpful. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 13:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- I realize that you're using an edit tool, but I also note that in some (few) cases, you also specify what you're actually doing, as you did here. It seems to me that the A.B.Street edit summary should read "Moved NIE tag above cats". It certainly was not a "general overhaul" of the article, which implies a thorough going over. -- Mwanner | Talk 14:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- You're presumably not familiar with the editing-tool, and I advise you to read the documentation pages as they can explain it far better than I can! Essentially, it automates the edit-summary. I get no say in the edit-summary. It will always say general overhaul (which I do not feel is misleading - the software audits the entire article for syntax errors, basic style errors and typographical errors) and will supplement it with a description of the typos it has fixed, if any.
- Lovely as it would be if it could give summaries such as the example you described, it can't. Loads of editors will simply do things like that without a summary at all, or with just a summary like the program's default of "clean-up" - the edit-summary really doesn't need such detail IMO. To be honest, hundreds of editors use it every day and as far as I'm aware, there has never been a complaint like yours before! Thanks for your continued interest, ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 14:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- It completely automates the edit summary? That seems crazy, to me. I will certainly visit the talk page; a default message of "clean-up" would certainly seem a better fit to what it's doing than "general overhaul". Anyway, sorry for unloading on you-- I've seen this type of summary before, and been annoyed by them, but today was just the day they got to me. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 14:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- I realize that you're using an edit tool, but I also note that in some (few) cases, you also specify what you're actually doing, as you did here. It seems to me that the A.B.Street edit summary should read "Moved NIE tag above cats". It certainly was not a "general overhaul" of the article, which implies a thorough going over. -- Mwanner | Talk 14:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- For the record, from Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser: "Avoid making insignificant or inconsequential edits such as only adding or removing some white space, moving a stub tag..." (as in my original example, and here) -- Mwanner | Talk 14:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- If you have a problem with the edit-summary system of a very old and well-respected tool, please take that concern to the correct place. If you wish to complain about my behaviour with it (and "complain" doesn't mean just pointing to the rules, it means giving a reason as to why it was inappropriate) then please don't just quote guidelines "for the record" with an accusatory edit-summary.
- My response to your criticism such as it is, however, is that the vast majority of my edits (95%? more?) followed the instruction you quoted. Strictly speaking, all of them followed it, since it says merely to "avoid", and I feel that I have done. I have configured the program to never make only whitespace changes - unfortunately there's no option for the others, but my manual scrutiny, plus the fact that most articles need no such changes, covers most of the rest.
- If you are unsatisfied with my behaviour, please take such steps as you deem right (WP:AN, WP:RFAR, whatever); I am decided that I consider my use of the tool appropriate! Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 14:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well, look, I'm not going to start a whole production here, but it does seem to me that many of your edits using AWB violate the "inconsequential edits" rule. And the reason such edits are inappropriate are spelled out in the rule: "This is because it wastes resources and clogs up watch lists." I'm sorry that you have taken such offense at my pointing it out. -- Mwanner | Talk 14:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- TreasuryTag - I would encourage you to take this criticism seriously. It does appear that the edit in question violates policy. Agreeing to avoid such edits in the future - which is all that is being asked - is a quite reasonable request. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well, look, I'm not going to start a whole production here, but it does seem to me that many of your edits using AWB violate the "inconsequential edits" rule. And the reason such edits are inappropriate are spelled out in the rule: "This is because it wastes resources and clogs up watch lists." I'm sorry that you have taken such offense at my pointing it out. -- Mwanner | Talk 14:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I have taken no offence at your pointing it out. I merely disagree with your interpretation, and also with your views about the AWB tool. There is nothing to be gained by spending time discussing the issue - it's not a serious one, IMO. If you feel it is then you need to deal with it as such. I do avoid such edits and therefore feel I follow the rule. Of course I undertake to avoid such edits in future, that is the rule. I will avoid them in precisely the way that I have avoided them in the past. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 14:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- PS: I fail to see how "an edit" can violate a policy to "avoid" a certain type of edits. Avoid is not an absolute term, it requires effort (which I put in) but not disproportionate effort, nor at the expense of anything else. If I spent time fixing out each AWB frame for such things, I would not make half the good changes I have time to. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 14:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- An edit can't. See [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. That's in 10 minutes. -- Mwanner | Talk 15:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Fine, I apologise and if you will give me a postal address I will send you $5000 compensation. But please stop all these diffs on my talkpage. I think that I fulfill the rule, given the hundreds of "successful" edits I have made today. If you don't, I suggest dispute resolution because I am not going to change my mind on my own about this! Thanks for respecting my request to stop the discussion above, by the way! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- An edit can't. See [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. That's in 10 minutes. -- Mwanner | Talk 15:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know of that section nearly an hour after you made it. All discussion can now take place there, centrally. This thread is now closed and any further edits to it will be reverted. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
General overhaul?
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Please take this to other discussion fora if you wish to continue, I'm resolutely satisfied with the situation as it is now. As, I believe, the vast majority of the Wikipedia community seem to be. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 14:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but summarizing edits like this as a "General overhaul" seems like a real stretch, to me. Edit summaries are supposed to help other editors know what you are doing. Might just as well leave no summary at all as one as misleading as this is. -- Mwanner | Talk 13:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- I was using an editing-tool called AutoWikiBrowser, whose default edit-summary is, "clean-up" - if my summary is misleading (and it really isn't...) then so is the default, and so the correct place to bring up your concern would be the software talkpage. The reason I don't just leave no summary at all is that to leave one (including this) is more helpful. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 13:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- I realize that you're using an edit tool, but I also note that in some (few) cases, you also specify what you're actually doing, as you did here. It seems to me that the A.B.Street edit summary should read "Moved NIE tag above cats". It certainly was not a "general overhaul" of the article, which implies a thorough going over. -- Mwanner | Talk 14:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- You're presumably not familiar with the editing-tool, and I advise you to read the documentation pages as they can explain it far better than I can! Essentially, it automates the edit-summary. I get no say in the edit-summary. It will always say general overhaul (which I do not feel is misleading - the software audits the entire article for syntax errors, basic style errors and typographical errors) and will supplement it with a description of the typos it has fixed, if any.
- Lovely as it would be if it could give summaries such as the example you described, it can't. Loads of editors will simply do things like that without a summary at all, or with just a summary like the program's default of "clean-up" - the edit-summary really doesn't need such detail IMO. To be honest, hundreds of editors use it every day and as far as I'm aware, there has never been a complaint like yours before! Thanks for your continued interest, ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 14:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- It completely automates the edit summary? That seems crazy, to me. I will certainly visit the talk page; a default message of "clean-up" would certainly seem a better fit to what it's doing than "general overhaul". Anyway, sorry for unloading on you-- I've seen this type of summary before, and been annoyed by them, but today was just the day they got to me. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 14:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- I realize that you're using an edit tool, but I also note that in some (few) cases, you also specify what you're actually doing, as you did here. It seems to me that the A.B.Street edit summary should read "Moved NIE tag above cats". It certainly was not a "general overhaul" of the article, which implies a thorough going over. -- Mwanner | Talk 14:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- For the record, from Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser: "Avoid making insignificant or inconsequential edits such as only adding or removing some white space, moving a stub tag..." (as in my original example, and here) -- Mwanner | Talk 14:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- If you have a problem with the edit-summary system of a very old and well-respected tool, please take that concern to the correct place. If you wish to complain about my behaviour with it (and "complain" doesn't mean just pointing to the rules, it means giving a reason as to why it was inappropriate) then please don't just quote guidelines "for the record" with an accusatory edit-summary.
- My response to your criticism such as it is, however, is that the vast majority of my edits (95%? more?) followed the instruction you quoted. Strictly speaking, all of them followed it, since it says merely to "avoid", and I feel that I have done. I have configured the program to never make only whitespace changes - unfortunately there's no option for the others, but my manual scrutiny, plus the fact that most articles need no such changes, covers most of the rest.
- If you are unsatisfied with my behaviour, please take such steps as you deem right (WP:AN, WP:RFAR, whatever); I am decided that I consider my use of the tool appropriate! Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 14:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well, look, I'm not going to start a whole production here, but it does seem to me that many of your edits using AWB violate the "inconsequential edits" rule. And the reason such edits are inappropriate are spelled out in the rule: "This is because it wastes resources and clogs up watch lists." I'm sorry that you have taken such offense at my pointing it out. -- Mwanner | Talk 14:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- TreasuryTag - I would encourage you to take this criticism seriously. It does appear that the edit in question violates policy. Agreeing to avoid such edits in the future - which is all that is being asked - is a quite reasonable request. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well, look, I'm not going to start a whole production here, but it does seem to me that many of your edits using AWB violate the "inconsequential edits" rule. And the reason such edits are inappropriate are spelled out in the rule: "This is because it wastes resources and clogs up watch lists." I'm sorry that you have taken such offense at my pointing it out. -- Mwanner | Talk 14:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I have taken no offence at your pointing it out. I merely disagree with your interpretation, and also with your views about the AWB tool. There is nothing to be gained by spending time discussing the issue - it's not a serious one, IMO. If you feel it is then you need to deal with it as such. I do avoid such edits and therefore feel I follow the rule. Of course I undertake to avoid such edits in future, that is the rule. I will avoid them in precisely the way that I have avoided them in the past. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 14:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- PS: I fail to see how "an edit" can violate a policy to "avoid" a certain type of edits. Avoid is not an absolute term, it requires effort (which I put in) but not disproportionate effort, nor at the expense of anything else. If I spent time fixing out each AWB frame for such things, I would not make half the good changes I have time to. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 14:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- An edit can't. See [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. That's in 10 minutes. -- Mwanner | Talk 15:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Fine, I apologise and if you will give me a postal address I will send you $5000 compensation. But please stop all these diffs on my talkpage. I think that I fulfill the rule, given the hundreds of "successful" edits I have made today. If you don't, I suggest dispute resolution because I am not going to change my mind on my own about this! Thanks for respecting my request to stop the discussion above, by the way! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- An edit can't. See [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. That's in 10 minutes. -- Mwanner | Talk 15:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know of that section nearly an hour after you made it. All discussion can now take place there, centrally. This thread is now closed and any further edits to it will be reverted. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.