Difference between revisions of "User talk:Svengali"
From Elite Wiki
m |
m (Replaced content with 'Drop a note...') |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | == A plea! == |
||
| + | Drop a note... |
||
| − | |||
| − | I've seen that you have made lots of edits recently. Please, please, can you always use the Summary field when making the edits?? Without, it is difficult to see what has changed when viewing the [[Special:RecentChanges|Recent Changes]] page. [[User:JazHaz|JazHaz]] 06:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC) |
||
| − | |||
| − | :For important bits, sure - I'm already doing it (like ISO8601). But for fixing a typo, templates (self explaining) or talk/user pages it's just a waiste of ressources. btw: some talk pages could need a cleanup (e.g. [[Talk:OXP]] ), no need to carry 3 years old discussions. A short summary and a list of past contributors will be enough, what do you think? |
||
| − | |||
| − | ::Yes that would be fine. Have also asked the same of [[User:Smivs|Smivs]] who has made a few edits without summaries recently. [[User:JazHaz|JazHaz]] 12:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC) |
||
| − | |||
| − | :::Would be? Changes (like typo fixes) are pretty, but shouldn't produce unnecessary overhead for the database. Maybe I'm wrong, but describing every tiny bit will likely blow up everything. And if necessary there's still the history. [[User:Svengali|Svengali]] 12:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC) |
||
| − | |||
| − | ::::Recent Changes gets cleared down regularly, so this shouldn't be a problem. [[User:JazHaz|JazHaz]] 00:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC) |
||
| − | |||
| − | ::::: History is stored for every change - even for talk pages, so using comments/summaries for a typo-fix seems a bit overdosed. [[User:Svengali|Svengali]] 11:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 23:12, 3 February 2011
Drop a note...
