| Revision as of 06:36, 24 February 2009 editKylu (talk | contribs)9,405 edits →completeness?: as much as I can.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 01:51, 4 March 2009 edit undoKylu (talk | contribs)9,405 edits page notice | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{notice|If you want to ask questions regarding any checks of mine, asking if I've checked you for some reason, or other question '''not directly related to the log page itself''' please ask on my ] instead. I don't review this talkpage very often. Thanks.}} | |||
| == completeness? == | == completeness? == | ||
| Do you intend for this log to be a complete history of your CU usage? If so, SPI investigations should link to the SPI page, and you will need to think about how much detail you want to give when doing second opinion work; I think that using "second opinion" would be an appropriate summary, but you might like to explain the nature of the actual investigation rather than the reason you are doing it. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 06:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC) | Do you intend for this log to be a complete history of your CU usage? If so, SPI investigations should link to the SPI page, and you will need to think about how much detail you want to give when doing second opinion work; I think that using "second opinion" would be an appropriate summary, but you might like to explain the nature of the actual investigation rather than the reason you are doing it. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 06:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 01:51, 4 March 2009
 | If you want to ask questions regarding any checks of mine, asking if I've checked you for some reason, or other question not directly related to the log page itself please ask on my discussion page instead. I don't review this talkpage very often. Thanks. |
completeness?
Do you intend for this log to be a complete history of your CU usage? If so, SPI investigations should link to the SPI page, and you will need to think about how much detail you want to give when doing second opinion work; I think that using "second opinion" would be an appropriate summary, but you might like to explain the nature of the actual investigation rather than the reason you are doing it. John Vandenberg 06:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think I can only reasonably opine on my own checks: If I'm asked for second opinion work, I've been putting the detail into the private log, so cu's can get information from the person who initiated the check. The SPI investigation suggestion makes sense. Kylu (talk) 06:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)