323:– always adding a new post rather than revising – and sometimes thread mode makes the most sense. But we've also seen situations where thread mode has failed miserably. Sometimes it's intentional, because one side insists on making circular arguments. Other times it's more likely not intentional (e.g., newbies who don't understand our posting norms). Regardless, a discussion can still stray way off the original point. The biggest problem with thread mode is that it doesn't require people to make complete arguments. But really, the question isn't one of strictly threaded versus threaded with occasional refactoring versus unthreaded. It's more a question of whether people are allowed, even expected, to modify their original statements. There is no policy or guideline that prohibits doing so. Some people
268:'. My signature is meant for things which I write in the format I present them, perhaps with exceptions for minor editorial corrections. If the original timestamp is contextually important, you can copy my sig and timestamp, as long is it is within the quotation marks or other quote markup along with the rest of my text. In all cases, indicate your own necessary editorial changes with square brackets, including elision (e.g.,: "When writing about cats, dogs, , etc. do not anthropomorphize.") It is not necessary to preserve links and other markup when quoting text.
134:. If I make a modification of a comment in a manner which I feel might be misleading, I will use the aforementioned markup, add a note at the end of my post, respond to someone's pre-revision comment with a note that I have revised, or otherwise prevent confusion. If you want to reply to a comment of mine, feel free to form a response which stands alone and post it separately, rather than forming a thread, if it bothers you that I do not strictly follow "thread-mode" discussion (in which every edit to a discussion is a new post).
380:
that people don't like me changing their comments much less deleting them. So feel free to remove your objection yourself, after it is no longer valid. Why waste readers' time looking at something phrased poorly, followed by a request for clarification, followed by the clarification? Why not just have the reader read the clarified statement from the beginning?
42:
98:
404:. If your only purpose is to win, I'd suggest a debate team, not Knowledge. If your purpose is to form consensus with others and move forward productively, then having someone change their comment in response to your criticism seems evidence that you have succeeded. Just respond the same way you would otherwise.
178:
If my comment is in response to you, and you delete that comment, I'm generally okay with you deleting my response. But if you do so, please leave a message on my user talk page, and don't delete the same comment more than once. If I re-add it (often in edited form to no longer be a reply to you in
154:
A wiki also provides the ability to sign your username and a timestamp (with four tildes: ~~~~), and add a new timestamp (with 5 tildes). If I refactor my comments, I may update the timestamp by: deleting the old signature entirely and replacing it; adding a textual note (examples: "Edited: ~~~~~",
142:
A wiki provides the ability to modify your comments after you've written them, and the ability to combine comments from multiple people into one. In many cases, especially where there is a well established concept, it seems most efficient not to form a thread at all. The concept is similar to that
379:
This is an argument that is made when a reply makes an objection and I then respond to that objection by revising my post. As noted above, I will not do this (except by accident) without some annotation of the revision. If you'd like, I can remove your objection after I address it; but I assume
408:, I will probably not change my post to address a criticism in a non-obvious way, and may well not change it at all, but reply below your post in a threaded manner. Self-refactoring is not what I do every time, just when it seems the most practical approach.
293:
exists for this). Note that if you keep the original where it is, you're copying, not moving. But don't overthink it; if the original has been closed or hatted rather than outright deleted, but otherwise effectively moved, consider it a move.
302:
None of this is policy, nor is it intended to be such. I think most of my requests above are actually expansive of normal procedures (not to mess with other people's comments without good reason), so I don't see it as becoming a problem. Use
224:
I also don't mind if you split a section into two sections for topical clarity or just a convenience break, at or near my post, as long as it does not result in a confusing situation, such as making it look like I did not reply to someone.
186:
editors may object and even revert you. If you do refactor a comment of mine, please notify me on my user talk page; what you think was an error may not have been. If I revert your change to my comment, do not re-revert to your version.
284:
purpose. Specifically, moving an entire discussion to an archive page and linking to that archive page is absolutely fine by me. So is moving the discussion to a more appropriate venue (please leave a pointer behind; the template
106:
If someone has directed you to this page, they are probably indicating they reserve the right to refactor their own posts (within reason), and have a permissive attitude about talk-page refactoring in general (within
217:
It's also likely to be fine by me if you neutrally refactor lengthy response commentary that includes mine from a short comments section (poll or "!voting") to an extended discussion section at an
159:
the old timestamp and inserting a new one; or just replacing the original timestamp. In some cases, I may leave the old timestamp as-is if the change was minor, such as a typo fix.
202:
a talk page segment that includes one or more of my posts (unless you are doing it to my post only, to try to silence me – that will likely be interpreted as
427:– A notice template to add to your user and/or user talk page (points to this essay by default, though you can point it at a custom one in your user space).
221:
or similar discussion. I reserve the right to leave behind a short pointer, e.g., "] section]", or to revert you if I disagree with relocating my reply.
167:
The above refers to me refactoring my own comments. Generally I'd prefer that people don't refactor my comments for me, other than as permitted by
335:. There is a strong Knowledge community presumption that people are allowed to do as they will with their own posts and not with those of others.
57:
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more
Knowledge contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
393:
How do you reply to a comment that might change any time, and that certainly will change if you make any effective criticism of it?
58:
332:
168:
182:
If I've made an obvious typographical error, I will not mind if you fix it, though doing to is discouraged by WP:TPG, and
147:, although it's more like MultiWiki, and uses the same page, rather than different ones. It is also used extensively on
288:
203:
385:
An already-clarified statement followed by an unanswered and inexplicable request for clarification is just confusing.
199:
28:
452:
328:
211:
257:
for long), or italics – and attribute it to me. But don't add my signature; rather, use a format such as '
360:
304:
324:
191:
422:
308:
195:
401:
252:
62:
352:
244:
119:
72:
388:
As noted above, I will not do this (except by accident) without some annotation of the revision.
241:
a comment of mine, in whole or in part, please put it in quotation marks, a quotation template (
17:
397:
345:
50:
118:
All comments I make are works in progress and are subject to change without notice. I
446:
356:
218:
207:
172:
206:). If I or others object, you are generally obligated to respect the objections per
65:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
437:
144:
148:
130:
markup, but sometimes I don't consider this reasonable, much less necessary.
132:
I will sometimes modify my comments even after people have replied to them
344:
If you edit your own comment after someone replies, doesn't that violate
400:
an argument, or to convince others of your point and work toward
371:
Actually this method doesn't change your ability to reply at all.
281:
436:
This text was initially adapted from a personal disclaimer by
92:
36:
280:
is generally fine, unless you're doing it for some type of
27:"WP:THREADMODE" redirects here. You might be looking for
175:), usually to fix a technical problem like bad markup.
80:
138:This is a wiki; let's use the features it provides
155:"", "Clarified per request below, ~~~~~", etc.);
198:, or (if a discussion has gotten out of hand)
315:Strictly threaded discussion has a place, too
151:, where thread mode is not really available.
8:
137:
368:This approach makes it difficult to reply.
319:There's nothing wrong with thread mode,
7:
376:But you might make me look stupid.
122:my comments a lot. Sometimes I use
63:thoroughly vetted by the community
59:Knowledge's policies or guidelines
25:
179:particular), I want to keep it.
96:
40:
18:Knowledge:Thread-mode Disclaimer
329:free to edit here as we see fit
396:Depends if your purpose is to
210:, unless you are acting in an
190:I generally won't mind if you
114:Thread-mode comment disclaimer
1:
29:Knowledge:Avoid thread mode
469:
351:No. Just read it. And see
298:This is all just a request
70:
34:Essay on editing Knowledge
26:
440:(used with permission).
333:WP:Policy and guidelines
104:This page in a nutshell:
331:, within the bounds of
169:WP:Talk page guidelines
163:Refactoring my comments
249:is for short ones and
61:, as it has not been
289:Moved discussion to
276:Moving my comments
229:Copying my comments
325:just don't like it
272:Moving my comments
204:disruptive editing
278:in their entirety
233:If you decide to
111:
110:
91:
90:
16:(Redirected from
460:
453:Knowledge essays
426:
327:, but we're all
292:
267:
263:Quoted text here
256:
248:
100:
99:
93:
83:
44:
43:
37:
21:
468:
467:
463:
462:
461:
459:
458:
457:
443:
442:
434:
420:
417:
361:WP:Common sense
341:
339:Some objections
317:
300:
286:
274:
265:
264:
260:
250:
242:
231:
165:
158:
140:
129:
125:
116:
97:
87:
86:
79:
75:
67:
66:
41:
35:
32:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
466:
464:
456:
455:
445:
444:
433:
430:
429:
428:
416:
413:
412:
411:
410:
409:
407:
391:
390:
389:
383:
382:
381:
374:
373:
372:
366:
365:
364:
340:
337:
316:
313:
299:
296:
273:
270:
262:
258:
240:
236:
230:
227:
185:
164:
161:
156:
139:
136:
127:
123:
115:
112:
109:
108:
101:
89:
88:
85:
84:
76:
71:
68:
56:
55:
47:
45:
33:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
465:
454:
451:
450:
448:
441:
439:
431:
424:
419:
418:
414:
405:
403:
399:
395:
394:
392:
387:
386:
384:
378:
377:
375:
370:
369:
367:
362:
358:
354:
350:
349:
347:
343:
342:
338:
336:
334:
330:
326:
322:
314:
312:
310:
306:
297:
295:
290:
283:
279:
271:
269:
254:
246:
238:
234:
228:
226:
222:
220:
215:
213:
212:administrator
209:
205:
201:
197:
193:
188:
183:
180:
176:
174:
170:
162:
160:
152:
150:
146:
135:
133:
121:
113:
105:
102:
95:
94:
82:
81:WP:THREADMODE
78:
77:
74:
69:
64:
60:
54:
52:
46:
39:
38:
30:
19:
435:
320:
318:
305:common sense
301:
277:
275:
232:
223:
216:
189:
181:
177:
166:
157:striking out
153:
141:
131:
117:
103:
48:
423:Thread mode
353:WP:REFACTOR
149:Everything2
49:This is an
309:wikiquette
253:talk quote
214:capacity.
145:DoubleWiki
406:That said
402:consensus
346:WP:REDACT
245:talkquote
447:Category
415:Template
259:UserName
192:collapse
120:refactor
107:reason).
73:Shortcut
438:Anthony
261:said: "
432:Source
359:, and
357:WP:IAR
321:per se
208:WP:BRD
173:WP:TPG
128:insert
124:delete
239:quote
200:"hat"
196:close
184:other
51:essay
307:and
282:evil
235:copy
126:and
398:win
237:or
219:RfC
143:of
449::
425:}}
421:{{
355:,
348:?
311:.
291:}}
287:{{
255:}}
251:{{
247:}}
243:{{
194:,
363:.
266:"
171:(
53:.
31:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.