Person talk:John Carter (110)

Why Remove? [3 March 2014]

Jrich - In spite of your long-standing abuse of the principle, be advised that it is poor wiki etiquette to comment on other people's edits in release messages. Talk pages are there for a reason. As to why remove comments that detail Savage updates, the transcript being referenced consolidates those updates, so describing them on individual pages doesn't seem to add anything and certainly isn't a systematic practice. But you are free to disagree. --jrm03063 15:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not the only one who follows this practice, but picked it up from others because it offers a certain economy when an issue should just go away. Further, I wasn't interested in discussing why you seem to think every citation of Savage should fit your prescribed needs first, rather than serve the purpose they were put on the page for, namely to communicate information and alert people to possibly confusing situations. Perhaps you will be shocked to know that many people actually look at Savage elsewhere and so don't see the corrected transcript. --Jrich 16:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, I'm not reaching you. I'll see if someone from the oversight committee can do a better job explaining this to you. --jrm03063 19:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

You appear to be talking about "enter a descriptive comment in the Summary box at the bottom of the page" from Help:Wiki etiquette. Maybe they'll compare how many I enter compared to you. --Jrich 20:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

JRM, you've asked a member of the Overview Committee to intervene. Let me make sure I'm understanding this correctly. First, JRM edited the page to add a savage template, removed "as corrected at 1:511 and 3:608" in the process, and left no explanation in an edit summary. Then, Jrich replaced the "as corrected at 1:511 and 3:608" text and left a descriptive edit summary. Have I got it right so far?

According to WP:Help:Edit summary, a user should "Summarise the change", "Give reasons for the change", and "Edit summaries should accurately and succinctly summarize the nature of the edit, especially if it could be controversial". Now, edit summaries are not the place for snarky comments or places to "carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved". However, in this situation, it seems to me that Jrich was explaining his edits. If a full discussion was thought to be warranted, then the talk page would be the place for that. If I've misunderstood this situation, please do let me know. --Jennifer (JBS66) 20:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)