editing & deleting posts

[Serial_Apologist]

You are in extreme mood today, S_A! It's hardly Stalinist to delete a link which is no longer applicable. It arguably adds to the flow of the debate to avoid sending people unwittingly up dead ends...

[french frank]

Sorry mercia - it was French Frank's general reference to deletions in #2 that I was thinking of.

? I didn't mention 'deletions' (did I?) but was discussing mercia's point about 'self-edits'. But people may also well quote a post which is subsequently edited, so if you check back later to see the context, it will have been changed. That already happens to some extent when people reply very quickly to a post, but in that case any confusion can be cleared up straight away. (That's usually only someone spotting a typo which the member is already in the process of correcting.

Anyway, checking up I see I extended (some while ago) the limit on getting a 'last edited by' notice to 8 minutes. This should give people time to notice slips/typos and alter them. The time limit on any user edits is 10080 minutes or ... one week.

[Serial_Apologist]

? I didn't mention 'deletions' (did I?) but was discussing mercia's point about 'self-edits'. But people may also well quote a post which is subsequently edited, so if you check back later to see the context, it will have been changed. That already happens to some extent when people reply very quickly to a post, but in that case any confusion can be cleared up straight away. (That's usually only someone spotting a typo which the member is already in the process of correcting.

Anyway, checking up I see I extended (some while ago) the limit on getting a 'last edited by' notice to 8 minutes. This should give people time to notice slips/typos and alter them. The time limit on any user edits is 10080 minutes or ... one week.

Thanks for the clarifications, FF.

[Nick Armstrong]

I see I extended (some while ago) the limit on getting a 'last edited by' notice to 8 minutes. This should give people time to notice slips/typos and alter them.

That's very interesting - I was wondering why I had been able somewhat belatedly to correct a few oddities and not be 'outed' by the 'Last edited' line at the bottom.

Unless, that is, vinteuil is watching in which case one's faux-pas is enshrined in a quote box in his subsequent mordant comment! (Mind you, I've done the same to him on more than one occasion! )

[Serial_Apologist]

That's very interesting - I was wondering why I had been able somewhat belatedly to correct a few oddities and not be 'outed' by the 'Last edited' line at the bottom.

Unless, that is, vinteuil is watching in which case one's faux-pas is enshrined in a quote box in his subsequent mordant comment! (Mind you, I've done the same to him on more than one occasion! )

My first message efforts tend to be full of errors due to them following my thought processes, and so, since I post rapidly for the sake of momentum, I try and quickly correct any errors that might be picked up or included in a subsequent post, especially if the debate is proceeding apace. It's easier to do with short messages, of course!

[french frank]

You would be just as well served by going through all your posts where you have written "who" instead of "whom", and asking to have them deleted.

Oh, leave that to the software. The Help for admin on "Time Limit on Editing of Thread Title" reads:

'Specify the time-limit (in minutes) within which the thread title may be edited by the user whom started the thread.'

According to that, by the way, I set it for 30 mins, so you should be able to edit your own mistakes in the title within that time. Not sure that it works, though, in which case Hosts can obleege.

[MrGongGong]

According to that, by the way, I set it for 30 mins, so you should be able to edit your own mistakes in the title within that time. Not sure that it works, though, in which case Hosts can obleege.

Sometimes its good to leave it though

I loved the start of the Eatertide thread ........ shame it wasn't a discussion of suitable seasonal foods
(and yes i'm sure I could start one . )

[jean]

'Specify the time-limit (in minutes) within which the thread title may be edited by the user whom started the thread.'

(Fantastic bit of hypercorrection there.)

[french frank]

(Fantastic bit of hypercorrection there.)

Probably overcharitably, I wondered if it was faulty editing: 'by the user by whom the thread was started'. Otherwise I find it difficult to believe anyone would have thought it correct in the first place.

[jean]

You'd be amazed. Since I started to notice it, I've seen it more than could possibly be explained by faulty editing.