User:Useight/RFA Subjects/Edit summaries

513:

editcountitis and editsummaryitis, and all sorts of other nefarious deeds. It won't matter how much explanation of your motivations you write. I tried very hard to get people off of editcountitis and on to things that actually make a difference to the project. Edit summaries make a big difference to some vandal fighters. I also tried to increase the success rate of RfAs for editors with less than 2000 edits by including those charts that I used to do. The results from RfA seemed to show that RfAs in this category with charts had a ~10% greater chance of success than RfAs without a chart. No matter; I was accused again of all manner of nefarious deeds. I've been considering re-starting the charts, and suffering the consequences, in the hopes of getting that 10% better success rate for <2000 edit count RfAs.

598:) I think it should add edit summary stats after prior comments, if any. In one of the rfas, it has added the stats before a pre-existing comment by me - it makes reading the page difficult. Or you may want to create a separate sub-section? btw, does it look at edit summary usage in Template space? If not, it may be a good idea to say that it looks at edit summaries in the article namespace. Also, you may want it to generate a table (a 2X2 matrix) to show edit summary usage for major and minor edits on one axis and for Article and other namespaces on the other axes generating four boxes. Also, implicit assumption is that the user would have made 500 edits to article namespace. Pl. feel free to disregard ;) any of these suggestions. -- 48:

through the history page want to know if you've just added a comma or changed the entire meaning. That helps them to know whether or not they want to read the diff. Since talk pages are for comments, I generally feel that it's sufficient to leave it with the automatically-produced section heading. While I occasionally add something like "agree with John", "reply to Mary", or "added {{unsigned}} template", I often don't, as I feel that the automatically-produced heading tells people what topic I'm commenting on, and that should be enough to make them know if they want to read it or not. Am I wrong on this? Is there a general policy that edit summaries should be used on talk pages as well? Thanks.

245:

page edits (although you may find it helpful later), and "required" for any non-minor (typographical/spelling) article edits (of course, this is not an official policy). I think it's a good idea to always use edit summaries, except for minor edits. Regarding adminship, I would probably oppose or at least comment on someone who did not consistently use edit summaries for article edits (and the automatically generated heading summaries don't count). Not using summaries for talk page edits would be fine with me. —

1852:

patrollers, watchlisters, etc. If the answer is that they mean to use edit summaries but just forget sometimes, I point them in the direction of the Preferences setting that automatically prompts for a summary when the user inadvertently forgets to include one. If they promise to reset their Preferences to turn that feature on, for me that solves the problem. I wish more users in general were aware that that feature is available. It's saved me from inadvertently posting a blank any number of times.

517:

number of members). The latter mostly entered into the project within the last year. Both sides think they are right. In almost every negotiation between these sides that I've seen, the disagreement has been unresolvable, and remains painfully open. These arguments are still going on, and some are even speaking of outright wiki-rebellion. This is a state of affairs that might be beyond the capabilities of the Knowledge community to master. --

1528:

good idea (and Mathbot's stats checked less pags and therefore turned out to be even LESS fair). The user is a vandalfighter, and the reverts are marked as minor, among most of the other edits. With only a handful of edits not marked as minor, missing only 1-2 will cause a very low % for article edit summary use for major edits. Stats are useful for a lot of things, but this kind of stuff is starting to appear more than I'd like to see.

851: 762: 1860:

poor log summaries (I think the software forces them to write something). Well, actually, lots of people use poor edit and log summaries, but as they gain experience, they should get better. But if they don't use edit summaries enough, that is a warning sign. I spent ages never putting any edit summmary for minor edits. I know better now, but my minor edit percentage is still shockingly low - it will take a long time to recover.

396:

rarely for minor ones. If you did a correlation* of my edit summary use against major/minor edit, you'd notice a quite startling difference between the two situations (*not sure whther a correlation is the right test between two discrete instances - t-test, perhaps?). I've no objection to such a bot being run, but I'd ask that if it is, it gives figures for both major and minor edits separately.

856: 767: 1364:

analysis, and will inevitably be on RfA - for instance, if someone only has one edit, voters opposing on that basis (which will be practically everyone) are looking at a statistic. In a similar fashion, statistics can be a useful tool - or can be a destructive tool. It's up to the voters, but regardless of that fact, the statistics will still be "out there". Thanks!

1172:

enormously increase the time taken for adding that each time (and because it's a copy/paste thing, I can't also have "stub correction" in my clipboard). Major edits in articles, yes, I can understand why edit summaries are useful there - but not with minor edits, and not with any pages where a person would normally sign their comments anyway.

1253:(ec) Why? An exact number lets people judge for themselves, and to make a qualified opinion of the person after looking at the candidate holistically. Having Mathbot report a range implies that 75% is an "acceptable" percentage of edit summaries, when in fact, there is no widely-accepted standard and can vary from person to person. Thanks! 1384:

have no chance on RfA whatsoever -- far too often statistics are misused. IMO, if the user is not fit for adminship, you wouldn't need a statistic to oppose. Having said that, I recognise that statistics are just a necessary means for the community to function in selecting admins. I don't like it, but obviously other people do, so...

1449:

excotic location for their "research" as to whether you should deserve an account. Also, just having a dinner or lunch meeting at a very expensive restaurant and paying for that. But no bribery, not in the US, they would never have bribery. Did I miss any other common behaviors that are definitely not bribery?

1859:

Actually, the big argument in favour of potential admins demonstrating consistent use of edit summaries is that this is usually good training for writing out log summaries when blocking, deleting, protecting, etc, etc. If someone is lazy at using edit summaries, they are probably more likely to write

1793:

I always use an edit summary if I'm working in the article namespace (unless I forget, which is very rare). I rarely use an edit summary on a talk page unless I'm doing something that merits one to explain my edit (such as archiving, to avoid my edit being mistook for vandalism). They're important in

1126:

It is not inaccurate. A number of people do find the frequency of edit summary usage to be a factor in deciding how to vote in RfAs. You see something wrong with that. That's fine. Some people do not. That's fine too. Some people do consider having some focus on a nominee's usage of edit summaries as

395:

Personally, I think that editsummaryitis is getting to be the new editcountitis. I'm sure that if you did such a chart for a lot of editors then the percentage would be surprisingly low, partly because one vital factor is missed out. I'm sure I'm not alone in using edit summaries for major edits but

303:

Editors who fail to use edit summaries display a lack of basic courtesy to others, especially to those who are on dialup either all or part of the time. It logically follows that editors who lack basic courtesy are less likely to be courteous in more important situations. This is why consistent use

1746:

I disagree. Edit summaries are part of the "paperwork" of making an edit. If editors don't use the tools they already have properly then we can't expect them to act differently with additional tools. Failure to use edit summaries certainly isn't a reason to block someone, but it is a reason to doubt

1723:

Because people never care to explain in a user talk page or the article talk page why some edit made by a new editor was reverted when it is not vandalism. I guess it takes too much time, so at least use an edit summary. Unless, of course, you are lazy and prefer using "rv" everywhere, even if it is

1527:

I am kind of bothered that people are still voting stricly based on edit summary use, even though looking at the original stats, you can see why that may not be fair. I went further so as to analyze the stats in more detail and explain why using major article edit summary use alone may not be such a

1489:

Mathbot doesn't oppose people. People oppose people. Mathbot provides the info. People use the info however they wish. Me, I don't care if someone has 60% edit summaries or 100% edit summaries. I don't use it; however, an extremely low edit summary usage is usually indicative of a new user, but this

1330:

The entire procedure at this point is ridiculous. I made a rough estimate of the inflation rate of max at time t of cited minimum edit count, and it looks like it is going up by about 100 a month (my data may be innacurate, many sampling, other problems) at which rate a user who starts now and edits

1656:

You can set an option to require summary in your preferences. As for the original question, yes, sometimes I kind of want to say "Look, you just transcluded your nomination without even saying so, are you doing that quietly so that nobody notices?" Summaries are really understimated, and some think

1233:

I will take offence however, as I think that is a poor way of making a point, especially coming from a bureaucrat. But to answer the broader question, I perfectly agree that one should not be too reliant on statistics on any kind. They have a place; it is not as if quality and quantity have nothing

1136:

I also note that Mathbot explicitly disclaims that the edit summary usage is a measure of the worth of an editor. Also another example where I don't use edit summaries: creation of a new page. What is there to say, besides, "I created this new page"? I thoroughly agree that in heavily vandalised or

614:

Yes, the bot does look in the template namespace, the message states that it ignores just talk pages, wikipedia, image, and user namespaces. About making a table with edits to all other namespaces, I don't know how useful is that, I don't think people care much if somebody does not consistently use

423:

I agree with Grutness, too. I pretty much use edit summaries on every edit now, because that is what some people seem to want, but it seems pretty silly when I remove a comma or add a period to spend more time on the edit summary than it took to fix the article. To judge a candidate for adminship

273:

They're important to some people, though I think that they are overemphasized on RFA because it is easy to see what a user's habits regarding edit summaries are very quickly when reviewing User Contributions. There are more important criteria we should be considering, albeit criteria that are more

244:

In general, I would suggest the following: Edit summaries are not necessary for truly minor edits (although I'll often put "spelling" or "comma"). They are optional for talk pages; something like "comment", "reply", or just copying-and-pasting your comment will work, not necessary for your own user

72:

I've been one of those who has used the RfA process to encourage edit summaries. I have counted article edits only in that; I have not counted edits to talk pages, for example. I don't recall anyone else holding the lack of summaries for talk page edits against anyone either. (I hope not, because I

47:

that edit summaries which consist of only a section heading supplied automatically, with no text added from the user, don't count. I'm just wondering to what extent we're supposed to use edit summaries in talk pages. I can see that it's very desirable for edits to articles, because people scrolling

1427:

To allay some come concerns that my bot's info about edit summary usage is being used more than what it's worth, I replaced the actual percentage with a link to the tool where one can get it. By the way, I would be interested in moving it to the toolserver, at will be faster there, and not use the

1338:

Whoo... I found that I edit at about 100 per 3 days to a week when I'm really active (like this week) but on average I apparantly have 5.73/day (which counts the few times i went on month-long vacations to internet-disabled places) which places me at 100 edits per 17 1/2 days (ish). I have no clue

1171:

FWIW, I probably barely scrape 5% edit summaries on minor edits. Not all browsers "remember" a minor edit code so you can jut type an "s" and have it remember that the last thing you typed in beginning with S was "stub correction". When you're doing a batch of 200 copy/paste stub changes, it would

1037:

It has been like this for a long, long time. There are certain areas of Knowledge which are regarded almost as private fiefdoms by those who frequent them (see recent comments on this matter by Massivego). A bit like the userbox kerfuffle, really, only more entrenched. Really, edit sumeries are an

1022:

It shows conscientiousness on the part of contributors and per Splash it's very helpful for page-watchers. I really dislike seeing ten minors in a row; a slog to check them all and no summaries just makes that worse. Agreed, lack of summaries is not an opppose reason on its own, but in combination

479:

Not a bad idea. I would suggest using edit summaries for minor edits is not onerous if one uses some fairly standard abbreviations. If fiddling with commas, the edit summary can just be "punc", for example. Simularly "typo" or "spell" or "gram" can cover many minor edits. But I certainly would not

339:

section of one's RfA. The percentage would be calculated by parsing user's recent contributions, and taking into account say the last 500-1000 edits to the article namespace (that is, no Talk:, User:, or Knowledge: namespaces). That because it is in article namespace where edit summaries are most

1868:

I agree totally with that. I used to be lazy about them too... Mathbot must hate me, when I first checked my edit summary usage, I had like 14,000 edits and only 14 were marked as minor. Mathbot had to go like 9 times into my contributions to figure out my percentage. I am slowly, but steadily

1851:

Every user should be using edit summaries (it's more important in mainspace than elsewhere but it still should be done everywhere). If a candidate wrote that he or she thinks edit summaries are a waste of time, that would trouble me because it suggests unfamiliarity with how useful they are to RC

1576:

anons don't use edit summaries (though that's understandable) but a lot of users don't use edit summaries either. I always use an edit summary (I have the thing that tells me if I forget ticked) because it makes vandalism reverts so much easier, especially on pages which get vandalised a lot so a

1448:

The servers are based in Florida yes? So one doesn't have as much in direct bribery, but one has other options. These include finding the right person to have a very quick affair with, helping stuff ballot boxes, helping remove valid ballots, being a lobbyist and paying for the person to go to an

1383:

Yep. I waited six months after becoming active before self-nomming myself on RfA simply out of fear of people's standards. Even then, I figured I might not make it because I had a comparatively low edit count, even for those times -- just barely over a thousand edits. Nowadays a guy like me would

933:

In my view edit summaries, good ones, are critical. They help vandal fighters, and they help other editors of the article hone in on what was substantive in the change, or why the comment is worth reading. With the available automation to remind you that you need to make one easily installed, any

516:

The core problem here is that there is a large and growing gap between a subset of the community that likes things the way they used to be, and a subset of the community that sees things as they are now. The former began operating on a Knowledge that was far smaller in every respect (most notably

1758:

I disagree as well. Funny that you feel that way; I'm the complete opposite. I can't stand when an experienced user doesn't use edit summaries. It just makes it harder to figure out what the user did, or why he/she did it. I could never support a candidate who didn't have extremely good edit

512:

I support this. However, please bear in mind that you are going to receive a *hellacious* amount of flack once it is implemented. I've been roundly criticized by a vocal subset of the community for supposedly raising the bar on admin appointments, hijacking RfA to my own purposes, suffering from

1775:

Trust is pretty subjective, but I'll simply assume here that experienced editors are generally trusted. Generally, experienced editors use edit summaries. When looking at a candidate, (not that I vote at RfA much anymore,) I look for edit summaries because that tells me, along with many other

678:

in a week or two, with it being basically focused on RfA only, and adding a bunch of statistics, as many as is reasonable. Major/minor is definitely one of them, but the data can be mashed up in all sorts of ways. It's just taking a bit longer than I thought it would because the SQL/indexing

610:

heading because it is easier to parse text that way, and is good that mathbot's message is always in the same place. I don't see how putting mathbot's comment first (one or two lines) would make the page less readable. For now, I don't know about a separate subsection, I doubt it is worth the

256:

I have article pages on my watch list; I have talk pages on my watch list. The only difference to me is that I expect edit summaries on article pages, and I very strongly encourage them on talk pages. Courtesy applies to the entire project, not just the end product. It's the same degree of

203:

every edit summary (and I've spotted the odd mistake where someone accidentally did something other than they intended and edit-summaried, which makes the odd check all the more worthwhile), but I certainly use it for a sort of triage of edits: you can't always view everything on RC, and edit

1363:

I'm not sure what other people think, but I, for one, still base my vote on the candidate, not on statisitics. However, as I've pointed out many times before, numbers offer a more complete view of the candidate and allows voters to look at a holistic view. Statistics have always been part of

545:

Edit summaries should always be filled out, minor edit or not. When I look at a page history or on RC I want the summaries to show me what has been done to a version. If someone has made a minor spelling correction, they should type that in the summary (shorten it to "sp" is fine). So I like

907:

I also think it's not too serious, but it shouldn't also be taken too lightly. Generally you'll not edit talk pages too much or make 10 edits in a row. This should bring your percentage to around 80% or so, which is acceptable. If anyone needs it, there is a script to force that input.

495:

When I am RC patrolling, I never select "hide minor edits". Reason; logged in vandals can very easily check "this is a minor edit". Similarly, edit summaries for minor edits I feel are important. Yes, even if you're just removing a comma. I typically put in something like "copyedit".

218:

I mess those up from time to time - I have preset edit summaries for disambig fixes and for missing article redirects, and occasionally I'll click the wrong one. But for something as minor as either of those operations, I don't bother to go back and put in a corrective edit summary.

376:

I have no code yet. I learned the hard way that you better ask if a tool is wanted before making one. :) About section edits, I believe you mean the default section heading /* .... */. That one can be stripped first by noting that in the html source code it shows up as

795:

Yeah, edit summary usage is just one of the many things one needs to take into account when voting for RfA, and is definitely not the most important one. However, it is hard to argue that a user who uses edit summaries under 20 percent of the time should be an admin yet.

1680:

I think the reasoning behind it is that if you turn that feature on, it will remind you to make one if you forget, not to force you to make one. In reply to ReyBrujo, I'm pretty guilty of using autosummaries, I just let the anti-vandal script do it for me quite often.

934:

editor that has a low percentage (even on minors) is going to be evaluated a bit lower by me, all other factors being equal. Is it a deal breaker? no. Is it a negative factor? yes. IMHO. As I say at my entry in the criteria page (which link escapes me at the moment)

719:

OK, as you saw my tool is nothing fancy, but works, and works now. :) When your tool is ready for primetime, I don't mind you using it instead of my silly script in people's RfA pages. But all that amount of graphics you plan makes me a bit intimidated. :)

1843:

I'm not saying that using edit summaries is a bad thing. Last I checked my ESU is 100% for major edits and 81% for minor. I'm just saying that just because a contributor has 82% edit summary usage does not merit an oppose if they have sufficient experience to be an

359:, we've been planning to add such a thing. However, I'm having a bit of trouble doing the parsing of html when there's a section-edit. Anyways, a bot would be a lot more useful. Could you send me the code that parses through the section-edit? Thanks a lot! 550:

sugestion. It will be usefull and also make more people aware of wikipedias guidline to always use them. If a candidate is ignoring this guideline on a considerate amount of his/her edits (minor or not), I'll most likely vote oppose myself if I see it.

898:

And of course, sometimes we just forget, or hit the "save page" button instead of the "this is a minor edit" checkbox. So, compared to, say, edit wars, vandalism, or breaching any other policy, a mediocre rate of edit summaries seems less serious, no?

1197:

I'm concerned about the inflation in acceptable edit summary percentages. I therefore tentively suggest having math bot only display an exact percentage if it is under 75% and otherwsie just say that it is over 75% (possible some other percentage).

1563:

Doesn't it just baffle you that people don't provide edit summaries when they post their RfAs? I mean, come on, one of the big things we look for in RfAs are edit summary use, and they don't even put one there... It really makes things easier...

536:

I'd be interested in any further thoughts on this "generational conflict". There are certainly scalability issues with the way the Knowledge community works, and I think analysing the issues in this way might produce some useful conclusions.

1118:

I see something wrong with that. It was not a clear summary of describing how a person would perform administrative duties, nor was it accurate. I do hope people focus more on the canidate's performance and posistion. We'll see how it goes.

1137:

controversial pages, every edit should be summarised to help out other editors. But when everyone is working together in harmony, it's simply not that necessary, and people will tend to check all the diffs since the last time they edited.

565:

For now things are still a bit in the testing mode, but after several days I will have it run hourly. Also, looking forward to more comments about whether people agree with such bot edits or not, and more specific suggestions in any way.

1490:

can also be determined in other ways (edit counts, account age, quality of edits, and so on). It's just a tool to determine how ideal a candidate is. Some people use it, some people don't. Leave it in for the other people that use it. --

1206:

I think the whole thing is crap ( no offense to the operator of Mathbot ) . Look at their last 100 contributions yourself. I can't believe we have such high standards for adminship. Soon enough only 3 people will be admins. —

1505:

There's no reason why a candidate can't remove the graphs if they don't want them on the page since reverting mathbot isn't like reverting a regular user so there shouldn't be any issue with that but it's up to the candidate.

257:

courtesy being provided to others in both places. If an editor neglects the courtesy on talk pages, then I'm far less likely to support promotion to a position where the editor's courtesy reflects on Knowledge as a whole.

334:

used to post charts with edit summary usage for RfA candidates. I am thinking of doing something similar, but automated (using a bot, that is), and with a percentage instead of a chart, which would go as a comment in the

886:

Just wondering if someone could enlighten me as to why edit summary rates are taken so seriously in RfA's. Yes, everyone should use edit summaries wherever possible, but there are contexts where they are less important:

304:

of edit summaries is an extremely important selection criteria for good admins. However, it is certainly not an elimination criteria, and even I have supported a few editors who didn't use edit summaries consistently.

82:

I hold it against potential admins too if they don't put edit summaries. And right, while edit summaries are very important on article pages, they matter less on talk pages; I guess one can use his/her judgement there.

1289:

I agree. I prefer having as much info as possible, especially since the days when we knew the editing style of everyone wishing to be an admin are long gone. Put the info out there and let people make up their own

94:

In a speech to a college class, Jimbo commented that editors are expected to include summaries as a courtesy to others. To my knowledge, there is no written rule. It's just a standard we hold each-other to.

835:

I agree. It's not exactly massively essential to the process, but with a low amount of edit summaries, you can infer that a user does respect the job others do, which is not a quality I want in an admin.

1642:

This reminds me, I have to get around to modifying the edit summary javascript code so I can't possibly not use an edit summary. That should bring it to 100% if I don't get annoyed and deactivate it. -

1234:

in common, but one should keep things in balance. Luckily, most Wikipedians understand that, and for those who don't, they may make silly votes whether they use statistics or other arguments for it.

343:

Technically this would be as easy to implement as parsing an html page. The question would that be helpful, or would it be just a thing which stays in the way or more important aspects of one's RfA?

1038:

excellent idea, and help eleviate concerns on watchlists, but aren't truly substantial in the analysis of an canidate. It's being used a bit too much as a coup-out in regards to a negative opinion.-

1476:

I might be misunderstanding something, but I'm really not sure the toolserver's health will be improved with further additions to it. There seems to be a perpetual replication lag these days. —

1794:

the article namespace but not so important outside it, since if you're editing on a talk page it's pretty obvious you're adding a comment/replying to one. This is just my opinion, of course. --

1114:

I can't agree with you that the basis of an administrative nomination should be determined by edit summary count. Of what I did see, the most puzzling was your quote of description :

1400: 1704:

Why do people make edit summaries such a big deal? Just type out a few words of what you did and it's all fine and dandy. I don't see why some people have such low edit summary usage.

1082:

The people who do this know who they are. Really its a very minor point in the manner a wikipedian should conduct one's self, but shouldn't be the only basis for an opposistion. -

1738:

Use of edit summaries has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not somebody would make a trustworthy admin, and oppose votes based on that are one of my wiki pet peeves.--

1807:

I would say that I agree with you, to the extent that edit summaries are less useful in the various _talk namespaces. They're pretty useful in the non talk namespaces.--

1432:, my employer, but I've been waiting to get an account on the toolserver for more than a month and a half now, and no sign that it would come anytime soon. As they do in 747:

Your tool is very nice for the time being. Just because the information is there doesn't mean people have to base their decisions on it. More information is more gooder.

1556: 1520: 1190: 879: 323: 32: 1657:

autosummaries like popups, AWB or similar are good. They are just slightly better than no summary at all. Use summaries to educate, not only to say what happened. --

1403:

for a while now, and part of the tool analyzes edit summaries in depth, I personally don't even consider edit summary usage when looking at RfA candidates, per my

289:

There are only a few measures of an editor that are valid reasons to support or oppose someone for adminship. The only three that come to mind are as follows:

155:

What if you have a highly trusted user who leaves "minor" as an edit summary? Would you trust that it was just a minor change, not worth greater explication? --

1420:

As someone with rather high admin standards who does use this tool, I still vote support more than oppose. We have new admins join the ranks nearly every day.

894:

A series of uncontroversial edits to the same page: When the same user has made 10 edits in a row to a page, the benefit of summarising each edit is reduced.

39:

I notice, browsing through the comments made by voters, that the use of edit summaries is considered important. I use them consistently in articles (except

956: 558:

Since all the responses were positive, I wrote a script to do the edit summary usage for RfA candidates. You can see how it works by looking at my bot's

1045:

I'm not sure I follow. I use it as one of my criteria but I'd like to hope I'm not using it as a cop out and I suspect that's true for most everyone.

44: 1460::) what about the president NOT EVER meeting a particular disgraced lobbyist despite being photographed with him... definitely not bribery... 148:

I wouldn't believe WoWs edit summaries (unless they are like "Wheeeee!"), but I sure as hell would belive yours and any other trustworty user

616: 1339:

why I went through the trouble of finding that out, but I am not a very active person compared to the people with 5x10^2000 edits. —

1116:

A number of RfA voters find the frequency of use of edit summaries by a nominee is a potential factor in voting for or against a nominee..

1030:

Durin, why not just compare between the first and last minor edit, rather than each individually? Then there's only one check to be made.

1696: 1672: 1648: 43:

occasionally when I accidentally press "save" before I realize that I haven't filled in the summary box). I see from comments made in

578:

Have the bot add a signature. Right now, I expect people to go hunting to figure out who added the comments about edit summaries. --

1009:

There is now a new box in your editing preferences for prompting you, once per edit, to add a summary if you should miss one out. -

696:

I do want to help out RfA as much as possible though, and hopefully tools like this don't harm the process. The userbox thing and

1622: 1596: 663: 58:

Yeah, it's not that big a deal on talk pages, I sometimes copy and paste what I said into the edit summary for short comments. --

1148:

is a barish baz) will make a perfect edit summary that can help new page patrollers or people who sort new pages thematically.

1666:

That doesn't work like I want, I can just press the button again. I want to not be able to send the edit without a summary. -

1299:

I'm very happy that I got my adminship while one was still judged on one's qualitative merits rather than quantitative ones.

463: 166:

Let me ask you, would you check the minor box, if you hadn't made a minor edit? that is, yes I would trust the edit summary

680: 638:; he already has code to do all the counting. As a minimum, you may want to run both scripts side-by-side for validation. 497: 1100: 845: 756: 671: 279: 249: 1441: 1404: 1239: 1060: 997: 949: 801: 725: 624: 593: 571: 530: 417: 386: 348: 21: 1280: 1468: 52: 480:

hold it against someone in RfA if they don't use edit summaries for small edits which are marked as minor.

1530: 1494: 116: 450:

Agreed with Grutness. That seems to be the better option. So I support the bot upon those conditions. --

1752: 1046: 983: 935: 275: 246: 1461: 49: 1614: 1588: 1437: 1370: 1291: 1259: 1235: 797: 721: 620: 589: 567: 547: 526: 413: 382: 365: 356: 344: 84: 1818: 1714: 1547: 1411: 1389: 1345: 1312: 1275: 1213: 966: 915: 310: 263: 102: 73:

tend to do exactly what you described you do, Ann.) What you describe seems very reasonable to me.

891:

Talk pages (do people often read talk page histories? in most cases the comment stands for itself)

424:

on whether he or she typed "remove comma" on an edit marked as minor seems a bit over the top. --

1178: 667: 456: 437: 402: 1845: 1739: 697: 167: 149: 1833: 1799: 1782: 1765: 1491: 1407:. There's no problem in having extra information, but there's a problem when users misuse it. 1355: 1322: 1223: 1159: 1138: 1120: 1083: 1039: 1031: 900: 1853: 1748: 1690:

Um... I know... That's why I need to modify the javascript tool to force me to make one... -

1508: 1421: 841: 752: 481: 428: 225: 161: 120: 74: 850: 761: 1870: 1861: 1747:

their commitment to following a process and to informing the community of their actions. -

1565: 1478: 1365: 1254: 1152: 642: 599: 360: 1810: 1779: 1706: 1385: 659: 305: 258: 96: 1828:

Oh yes, I didn't make my stance clear enough, I agree with you totally, Digitalme. --

1725: 1682: 1658: 1632: 1606: 1578: 1300: 1173: 1056: 1024: 993: 945: 701: 635: 451: 434: 397: 208: 62: 1776:

little things, that they are an experienced editor and that they deserve my trust.--

1631:

Bad as in a low quality joke that isn't really funny if you think about it. :)

559: 379:<span class="db-YXV0b2NvbW1lbg"> default section heading comment </span> 1877: 1829: 1795: 1761: 1691: 1667: 1643: 1450: 1350: 1340: 1332: 1317: 1307: 1218: 1208: 1199: 17: 615:

edit summaries when votign for deletion for example. Anwyay, I will post this at

1612:

Bad, as in insulting, or bad, as in it took me 15 seconds to get the joke? ;P --

1408: 1010: 973: 961: 922: 910: 837: 748: 552: 425: 220: 156: 1149: 1128: 1104: 855: 766: 675: 639: 579: 538: 518: 501: 331: 142: 1605:

With a name like yours I presume you mean molten irony! Oh dear, bad joke.

1331:

for eternity at a 100 edits a month will never be able to become an admin.

634:

Oleg, this is a great idea. But to avoid duplication of effort, check with

500:

may be useful to some for reducing the overhead on edit summary typing. --

1052: 989: 941: 606:

That's a lot of things. OK, first mathbot adds the usage right after the

205: 59: 1023:

with other things may turn a support to neutral, neutral to oppose etc.

292:

Experience sufficient to demonstrate a commitment to bettering Knowledge

1572:

I know it baffles me. Though overall edit summary usage is really low.

1433: 1429: 141:

On the other hand do people really belive edit summeries anyway?

1127:

relating to how well they will perform administrator duties. --

982:

D'oh! Blazingly obvious. Sorry for not remembering and thanks!

1144:

If you create a new page, the first sentence of the article (

525:

Conflict between generations, eh? We'll get over it. :)

670:

so far, and you have one. I do hope to have something like

381:. And for the record, any code I would make would be Perl. 679:

details are a little complicated. For what it's worth,

295:

Basic knowledge of policies they're expected to act upon

1577:

rollback still has vandalism from the prior editor.

1306:Same here. I've been here way too long :P — 658:There's a lot of duplication of effort, I guess. 1101:User:Durin/Admin_criteria_comments#Edit_summaries 433:I support this with minor-major differentiation. 1546:It happens. What do you plan to do about it? -- 700:make me think about benficial admins more. -- 8: 1274:Thanks! for the emphatic Thanks! ;-) -- 957:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Standards 357:the tool Titoxd and I have been working on 1436:, whom should I bribe to get in? :) 322:Edit summary usage for RfA candidates? ( 1586:Well, the world is full of irony... -- 1189:Mathbot and edit summary percentages ( 298:Courtesy in dealing with other editors 617:Knowledge talk:Requests for adminship 412:This sounds like a good idea indeed. 7: 666:are working together on one, I have 662:wrote one of the original counters, 1876:I love reformed sinners though... 28: 1399:Even though I've been working on 355:I would support such a thing. In 1755:· 19:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC) 1628:) 01:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC) 1602:) 01:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC) 1518: 854: 849: 765: 760: 252:04:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC) 215:03:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC) 163:03:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC) 152:03:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC) 145:02:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC) 54:00:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC) 1873:00:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC) 1864:23:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC) 1856:21:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC) 1848:21:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC) 1825:19:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC) 1803:19:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC) 1742:18:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC) 1720:18:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC) 1701:01:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC) 1677:01:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC) 1653:01:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC) 1609:01:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC) 1568:00:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC) 1512:---- 20:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC) 574:) 04:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 351:) 04:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 315:17:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC) 282:19:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC) 268:04:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC) 204:summaries help in choosing. -- 170:03:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC) 123:01:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC) 104:01:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC) 87:01:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC) 77:00:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC) 69:00:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC) 1: 1880:02:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC) 1837:19:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC) 1789:19:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC) 1770:19:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC) 1728:20:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC) 1685:01:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC) 1661:01:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC) 1635:01:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC) 1581:01:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC) 804:) 18:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC) 728:) 22:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC) 627:) 16:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC) 596:) 16:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC) 533:) 16:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 498:Knowledge:Edit summary legend 420:) 05:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 389:) 05:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 1444:) 02:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC) 859:21:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 602:09:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC) 588:copied from my talk page by 555:18:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 521:14:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 430:06:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 408:04:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 373:04:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 1869:getting my minor one up... 1724:a good faithed mistake. -- 1242:) 22:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC) 1123:16:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC) 1042:14:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC) 1027:13:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC) 979:13:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC) 952:12:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC) 903:11:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC) 770:04:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC) 704:18:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC) 647:16:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC) 582:13:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 541:18:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 504:17:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 484:16:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 468:07:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 439:06:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 1897: 1542:03:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC) 1499:13:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC) 1424:21:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC) 1335:20:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC) 1303:20:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC) 1267:20:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC) 1228:20:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC) 1202:16:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC) 1141:15:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC) 1131:21:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC) 1107:15:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC) 1086:14:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC) 1063:14:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC) 1015:12:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC) 1000:14:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC) 928:12:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC) 1550:17:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 1485:10:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC) 1470:09:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC) 1453:02:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC) 1416:21:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC) 1392:12:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC) 1378:20:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC) 1360:22:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC) 1327:22:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC) 1294:20:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC) 1282:20:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC) 1184:01:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC) 1162:16:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC) 1155:15:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC) 1034:16:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC) 1158:Not a bad idea, thanks! 668:three separate codebases 619:and wait for comments. 274:difficult to discern. 683:is what I have so far. 117:Knowledge:Edit summary 664:Flcelloguy and Titoxd 698:comments on wikien-l 548:User:Oleg Alexandrov 199:I don't necessarily 1836: 1802: 1700: 1676: 1652: 1519:Winhunter's RfA ( 1511: 1401:Flcelloguy's Tool 1377: 1266: 1181: 1014: 467: 405: 372: 213: 67: 1888: 1832: 1823: 1821: 1817: 1813: 1798: 1787: 1785: 1769: 1759:summary usage. — 1717: 1712: 1709: 1694: 1670: 1646: 1625: 1617: 1599: 1591: 1555:Edit Summaries ( 1539: 1536: 1533: 1507: 1483: 1465: 1414: 1374: 1368: 1358: 1353: 1348: 1343: 1325: 1320: 1315: 1310: 1278: 1263: 1257: 1226: 1221: 1216: 1211: 1179: 1049: 1013: 986: 976: 971: 964: 938: 925: 920: 913: 878:Edit summaries ( 858: 853: 769: 764: 461: 403: 369: 363: 313: 308: 266: 261: 247:Knowledge Seeker 223: 212: 209: 159: 99: 66: 63: 31:Edit summaries ( 1896: 1895: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1809: 1783: 1778: 1760: 1715: 1710: 1707: 1699: 1675: 1651: 1623: 1615: 1597: 1589: 1561: 1537: 1534: 1531: 1525: 1479: 1463: 1438:Oleg Alexandrov 1412: 1372: 1356: 1351: 1346: 1341: 1323: 1318: 1313: 1308: 1276: 1261: 1236:Oleg Alexandrov 1224: 1219: 1214: 1209: 1195: 1047: 984: 974: 967: 962: 936: 923: 916: 911: 884: 798:Oleg Alexandrov 722:Oleg Alexandrov 645: 621:Oleg Alexandrov 590:Oleg Alexandrov 568:Oleg Alexandrov 527:Oleg Alexandrov 414:Oleg Alexandrov 383:Oleg Alexandrov 367: 345:Oleg Alexandrov 328: 311: 306: 264: 259: 221: 210: 157: 131: 97: 85:Oleg Alexandrov 64: 37: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 1894: 1892: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1791: 1790: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1695: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1671: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1647: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1583: 1582: 1560: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1524: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1455: 1454: 1418: 1417: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1361: 1328: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1194: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1156: 1133: 1132: 1109: 1108: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1035: 1017: 1016: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1002: 1001: 930: 929: 896: 895: 892: 883: 876: 875: 874: 873: 872: 871: 870: 869: 868: 867: 866: 865: 864: 863: 862: 861: 860: 818: 817: 816: 815: 814: 813: 812: 811: 810: 809: 808: 807: 806: 805: 780: 779: 778: 777: 776: 775: 774: 773: 772: 771: 736: 735: 734: 733: 732: 731: 730: 729: 710: 709: 708: 707: 706: 705: 689: 688: 687: 686: 685: 684: 651: 650: 649: 648: 643: 629: 628: 612: 584: 583: 543: 542: 534: 510: 509: 508: 507: 506: 505: 488: 487: 486: 485: 474: 473: 472: 471: 470: 469: 452:Hurricane Eric 443: 442: 441: 440: 421: 393: 392: 391: 390: 327: 320: 319: 318: 317: 316: 301: 300: 299: 296: 293: 284: 283: 270: 269: 242: 241: 240: 239: 238: 237: 236: 235: 234: 233: 232: 231: 230: 229: 228: 227: 184: 183: 182: 181: 180: 179: 178: 177: 176: 175: 174: 173: 172: 171: 129: 128: 127: 126: 125: 124: 108: 107: 106: 105: 89: 88: 79: 78: 70: 36: 29: 27: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1893: 1879: 1875: 1874: 1872: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1863: 1857: 1855: 1849: 1847: 1835: 1831: 1827: 1826: 1824: 1822: 1814: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1801: 1797: 1788: 1786: 1781: 1774: 1767: 1763: 1757: 1756: 1754: 1750: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1741: 1727: 1722: 1721: 1719: 1718: 1713: 1703: 1702: 1698: 1693: 1689: 1684: 1679: 1678: 1674: 1669: 1665: 1660: 1655: 1654: 1650: 1645: 1641: 1634: 1630: 1629: 1627: 1626: 1619: 1618: 1611: 1610: 1608: 1604: 1603: 1601: 1600: 1593: 1592: 1585: 1584: 1580: 1575: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1567: 1558: 1554: 1549: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1541: 1540: 1522: 1510: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1498: 1497: 1493: 1487: 1486: 1484: 1482: 1469: 1467: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1452: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1443: 1439: 1435: 1431: 1425: 1423: 1415: 1410: 1406: 1405:RfA standards 1402: 1398: 1391: 1387: 1382: 1375: 1367: 1362: 1359: 1354: 1349: 1344: 1337: 1336: 1334: 1329: 1326: 1321: 1316: 1311: 1305: 1304: 1302: 1298: 1293: 1288: 1281: 1279: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1264: 1256: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1241: 1237: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1227: 1222: 1217: 1212: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1201: 1192: 1188: 1183: 1182: 1175: 1170: 1161: 1157: 1154: 1151: 1147: 1143: 1142: 1140: 1135: 1134: 1130: 1125: 1124: 1122: 1117: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1110: 1106: 1102: 1098: 1097: 1085: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1044: 1043: 1041: 1036: 1033: 1029: 1028: 1026: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1012: 1008: 1007: 999: 995: 991: 987: 981: 980: 978: 977: 972: 970: 965: 958: 955:I'd say it's 954: 953: 951: 947: 943: 939: 932: 931: 927: 926: 921: 919: 914: 906: 905: 904: 902: 893: 890: 889: 888: 881: 877: 857: 852: 847: 843: 839: 834: 833: 832: 831: 830: 829: 828: 827: 826: 825: 824: 823: 822: 821: 820: 819: 803: 799: 794: 793: 792: 791: 790: 789: 788: 787: 786: 785: 784: 783: 782: 781: 768: 763: 758: 754: 750: 746: 745: 744: 743: 742: 741: 740: 739: 738: 737: 727: 723: 718: 717: 716: 715: 714: 713: 712: 711: 703: 699: 695: 694: 693: 692: 691: 690: 682: 677: 673: 669: 665: 661: 657: 656: 655: 654: 653: 652: 646: 641: 637: 633: 632: 631: 630: 626: 622: 618: 613: 609: 605: 604: 603: 601: 597: 595: 591: 581: 577: 576: 575: 573: 569: 563: 561: 560:contributions 556: 554: 549: 540: 535: 532: 528: 524: 523: 522: 520: 514: 503: 499: 494: 493: 492: 491: 490: 489: 483: 478: 477: 476: 475: 466: 465: 459: 458: 453: 449: 448: 447: 446: 445: 444: 438: 436: 432: 431: 429: 427: 422: 419: 415: 411: 410: 409: 407: 406: 399: 388: 384: 380: 375: 374: 370: 362: 358: 354: 353: 352: 350: 346: 341: 338: 333: 330:A while ago, 325: 321: 314: 309: 302: 297: 294: 291: 290: 288: 287: 286: 285: 281: 277: 276:The Uninvited 272: 271: 267: 262: 255: 254: 253: 251: 248: 226: 224: 217: 216: 214: 207: 202: 198: 197: 196: 195: 194: 193: 192: 191: 190: 189: 188: 187: 186: 185: 169: 165: 164: 162: 160: 154: 153: 151: 147: 146: 144: 140: 139: 138: 137: 136: 135: 134: 133: 132: 122: 118: 114: 113: 112: 111: 110: 109: 103: 100: 93: 92: 91: 90: 86: 81: 80: 76: 71: 68: 61: 57: 56: 55: 53: 51: 46: 45:Jdabidb's RfA 42: 34: 30: 23: 19: 1858: 1850: 1842: 1808: 1792: 1777: 1737: 1705: 1621: 1613: 1595: 1587: 1573: 1562: 1529: 1526: 1495: 1492:Deathphoenix 1488: 1480: 1477: 1475: 1426: 1419: 1196: 1177: 1145: 1115: 968: 960: 917: 909: 897: 885: 607: 587: 585: 564: 557: 544: 515: 511: 462: 457:my dropsonde 455: 401: 394: 378: 342: 336: 329: 243: 222: BD2412 200: 158: BD2412 130: 50:Ann Heneghan 40: 38: 22:RFA Subjects 18:User:Useight 1854:Newyorkbrad 1749:Will Beback 1509:Pegasus1138 1422:Jonathunder 482:Jonathunder 340:important. 121:Jonathunder 75:Jonathunder 1871:Cbrown1023 1862:Carcharoth 1566:Cbrown1023 1557:Archive 74 1521:Archive 60 1481:Encephalon 1434:my country 1428:server of 1366:Flcelloguy 1292:Alabamaboy 1255:Flcelloguy 1191:Archive 51 880:Archive 50 676:toolserver 640:Owen× 600:Gurubrahma 361:Flcelloguy 324:Archive 44 33:Archive 31 1780:digital_m 1386:Johnleemk 98:Ingoolemo 1844:admin.-- 1726:ReyBrujo 1683:James086 1659:ReyBrujo 1633:James086 1607:James086 1579:James086 1548:Folajimi 1301:Sam Korn 1290:minds.-- 1174:Grutness 1025:Marskell 702:Interiot 636:Interiot 611:trouble. 435:jnothman 398:Grutness 337:Comments 20:‎ | 1878:Mathbot 1830:Deskana 1812:digital 1796:Deskana 1762:Mets501 1692:Amarkov 1668:Amarkov 1644:Amarkov 1616:physicq 1590:physicq 1451:JoshuaZ 1333:JoshuaZ 1200:JoshuaZ 1160:Stevage 1139:Stevage 1032:Stevage 901:Stevage 674:on the 660:WP:KATE 644:☎ 608:Comment 464:archive 312:focused 265:focused 250:দ 201:believe 1357:(Talk) 1324:(Talk) 1225:(Talk) 1011:Splash 838:JHMM13 749:JHMM13 553:Shanes 426:DS1953 101: 1697:edits 1673:edits 1649:edits 1532:Voice 1373:note? 1342:Ilyan 1309:Ilyan 1262:note? 1210:Ilyan 1150:Kusma 1129:Durin 1105:Durin 580:Durin 539:Rd232 519:Durin 502:Durin 368:note? 332:Durin 278:Co., 168:gkhan 150:gkhan 16:< 1846:Mike 1834:talk 1800:talk 1766:talk 1740:Mike 1708:Nish 1574:Most 1535:-of- 1442:talk 1430:UCLA 1409:Tito 1390:Talk 1240:talk 1180:wha? 1153:(討論) 1121:Zero 1103:. -- 1099:See 1084:Zero 1040:Zero 975:tofs 924:tofs 802:talk 726:talk 681:this 672:this 625:talk 594:talk 572:talk 531:talk 418:talk 404:wha? 387:talk 349:talk 280:Inc. 143:Geni 115:See 41:very 1711:kid 1538:All 1176:... 1146:Foo 1053:Lar 990:Lar 942:Lar 562:. 400:... 206:fvw 60:fvw 1820:me 1751:· 1716:64 1466:er 1464:kk 1462:Mi 1413:xd 1388:| 1371:A 1277:LV 1260:A 1055:: 992:: 959:. 944:: 848:) 844:| 759:) 755:| 460:- 454:- 366:A 307:Un 260:Un 219:-- 119:. 1816:_ 1784:e 1768:) 1764:( 1753:† 1624:c 1620:( 1598:c 1594:( 1559:) 1523:) 1496:ʕ 1440:( 1376:) 1369:( 1352:p 1347:e 1319:p 1314:e 1265:) 1258:( 1238:( 1220:p 1215:e 1193:) 1119:- 1061:c 1059:/ 1057:t 1051:+ 1048:+ 998:c 996:/ 994:t 988:+ 985:+ 969:e 963:F 950:c 948:/ 946:t 940:+ 937:+ 918:e 912:F 882:) 846:C 842:T 840:( 800:( 757:C 753:T 751:( 724:( 623:( 592:( 586:( 570:( 529:( 416:( 385:( 371:) 364:( 347:( 326:) 211:* 65:* 35:)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index