https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49631
--- Comment #11 from MZMcBride <b...@mzmcbride.com> --- Broadly, I think you're right. The symptom (and bug) here is the edit summary. The problem is the use of appendtext without specifying a summary parameter. The summary parameter is automatically filled in when section=new is used. An edit summary could be faked, but doing so would be kind of insane, in my opinion. That's why I filed this bug the way that I did. The edit summary is important to include, otherwise editors see edits to user talk pages and have no idea why they edited a particular user talk page. For example: 00:16, 16 June 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+395) . . User talk:Simsong (current) This should read: 00:16, 16 June 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+395) . . User talk:Simsong (A page you started (Digital Forensics XML) has been reviewed!) (current) Then I would know why I made a particular edit and so would everybody else. If you want to re-purpose the bug's summary to focus on edit summaries (the symptom) instead of not using section=new (what I consider to be the problem), I'm fine with that. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
