in reply to Re^6: Sorry I wanted to delete it (board rules deleting nodes without replies editing nodes)
in thread Spreadsheet::WriteExcel how to maintain row number

"being able to delete" - you mean edit. And using the edit feature to delete contents is frowned upon too. Sometimes the mods will even manually restore content deleted in this way. Example

  • Comment on Re^7: Sorry I wanted to delete it (board rules deleting nodes without replies editing nodes)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^8: Sorry I wanted to delete it (board rules deleting nodes without replies editing nodes)
by Anonymous Monk on Jul 28, 2014 at 22:55 UTC

    "being able to delete" - you mean edit.

    Yes, of course, thats what we've been talking about, when the text that used to be there is gone, delete is a good way to describe it

    Originally OP just blanked out the node title and contents, then LanX considered it, then op updated with the curent contents Sorry I wanted to delete it

     

    And using the edit feature to delete contents is frowned upon too. Sometimes the mods will even manually restore content deleted in this way. Example

    Yes, thats what the FAQ item you linked and quoted talks about, but its says "should" not "must"

    They restore contents when there are replies, when replies exist, when monks respond to the question being asked

    There are no replies regarding the question that used to be here that now needs restoring

    here is my example, the author ikegami considered his own node for deletion Reaped: Re: Undefined value as a symbol reference. There are no replies to it, and it was deleted

    Another author request for deletion for misreading it Reaped: Re:Ignore/delete

    and another by author LanX considered by LanX: plz delete Reaped: deleted

    So there you have it, its allowed to honor the request of an OP to reap the node hes blanked out before it has replies, should is not must, its allowed to honor the request

[reply]
      its says "should" not "must"

      And who's the judge? The examples you linked are all from monks of level 20+ and 5+ years of experience on this site. So there is good reason to trust them with the power to have a node reaped.

      They restore contents when there are replies, when replies exist, when monks respond to the question being asked

      What about all the monks that were typing up responses to the OP's node before they "deleted" it? It's just as uncool as unmarked edits.

[reply]

        And who's the judge? The examples you linked are all from monks of level 20+ and 5+ years of experience on this site. So there is good reason to trust them with the power to have a node reaped.

        But they don't have the power, they only considered the node, then monks vote, then janitors execute

        Monks can still view reaped nodes

        What about all the monks that were typing up responses to the OP's node before they "deleted" it? It's just as uncool as unmarked edits.

        In this case there weren't any, but the node can be unreaped at any time (or even considered for unreaping), and monks can still view reaped nodes

        If replies arrive, the node can be unreaped (hey its got replies now unreap)

        And it has been unreaped by a janitor, who also answered it, eight hour later ... so the janitor has ruled, and thats the ruling, and it stands

        janitors rule :)

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom