Hi Harry. May I ask you for some clarification re your removal of my talk from Kante4's talk page, and your rebuke on my own page? I like to be constructive, and obviously don't like to fall foul of admins - esp. ones with so many barnstars of appreciation.

You see, to me, supplying Edit Summaries (ESs) is being constructive. You're right of course that they are not mandatory (nor have I ever demanded them using that word). I expect you know all the following: that the Twinkle Single Issue Notice uw-2 supports the use of ESs, as do some standard Welcome messages, and the guideline Help:Edit_summary#Always_provide_an_edit_summary suggests it's good practice always to supply them, and there's the TOTD for February 9 says "If you make anything other than a wp:minor edit to an article, it helps others if you fill in the edit summary.", and indeed there's Ad 2 which says "ESs are there for a reason: use them".

Now, if a casual editor doesn't use ESs, that may may cause only a small no. of edits to be checked by edit-patrollers. However, well-established editors making over 24,000 edits may cause a much greater overhead to other editors. Should the established editors be 'above the law'? Are warnings to them just considered a nuisance to their clocking up another 1,000 edits? You'll say it's not the law - yes, but the spirit is the same - we ask all editors to be thoughtful & help other editors, don't we?

So, to me, asking an editor to supply ESs seems constructive - after all, they can always put their own case back to me if they disagree. However, all Kante4 has done is to pretend to forget. Yes, I always assume AGF, but 24,000 edits suggests one should think otherwise. And that editor can't even be bothered to use the wp:minor flag. Methinks it's more a case of Wonte than Kante.

So I still thought that sending an occasional (normally polite) reminder was constructive - certainly to date the editor has not objected himself to me per se (one can ask oneself why not).

So, why is it more constructive to always turn the other cheek, & just ignore an unhelpful (if prolific) editor? I prefer to see good practice followed (I'm sure admins do too) - or at least a reason put forward by the editor concerned as to why he feels he's a special case, rather than me walk away. Is that wrong of me?

Please reply here if you would, & I'll watch out. Thanks, Trafford09 (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)