| Revision as of 11:37, 21 March 2010 editTony Sidaway (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers81,722 edits Ancient stuff and closed discussions← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:08, 21 March 2010 edit undoGoRight (talk | contribs)6,435 edits →Perhaps you might clear something up for me ...Next edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| : I hope this brain-dump delivered over breakfast coffee and shredded wheat helps. ] (=] ) 10:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC) | : I hope this brain-dump delivered over breakfast coffee and shredded wheat helps. ] (=] ) 10:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :: This was fine. Thanks. --] (]) 19:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:08, 21 March 2010
User talk:Tony Sidaway/Notices
Perhaps you might clear something up for me ...
Care to weigh in on the following: , , , , and ? I ask because you seem to have a lot of experience with collapsing such discussions so I want to benefit from your experience. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 08:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- Collapsing isn't a universally accepted practice, but it often works to the benefit of the quality of discussion. I regard such edits as "bold" in the Wikipedian sense, and I always expect such edits to be reverted, at which point I forget it and move on.
- I seem to recall that this and similar practises are loosely discussed on WP:TPO. The problem with such guidelines is that they outline the kind of actions that are usually permissible, but do not really help in the particular case, so if somebody objects it's better to defer rather than to start a discussion about it--which would itself be off-topic.
- I hope this brain-dump delivered over breakfast coffee and shredded wheat helps. Tasty monster (=TS ) 10:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- This was fine. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)