Thanks and done.
I changed the title slightly and added a note about where it came from: I hope that's sufficient.
| [reply] |
To be clear: I didn't suggest reparenting this post, mainly because it already has replies which allude explicitly to its necropostness.
Also, you implied that you meant it to be a reply to a different node:
It looks like I mis-clicked on your last post instead of your current post, and replied to that.
But then you considered it to be promoted to root post:
Please reparent (with all replies in this subthread) as a top-level SoPW post.
That's not reparenting. See What do Janitors do?
In any case, if you know you made an error and want it to be fixed, just /msg gods and we'll fix it with minimal rigamarole.
But I'm really not inclined to move a post in a way that makes its replies contextless and confusing.
I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon staffed with 16,000 zombies.
| [reply] |
I had been looking at "Issues with XLSX.pm,".
I often check out post authors, especially if I'm unfamiliar with them,
to get a feel for whom I'm responding to if I do reply.
In this case, the OP was "Michael W" and his last post was "Array of variables" which I opened to look at.
I then got a series of interruptions — I don't recall exactly: $work emails, phone calls, that sort of thing.
When I got back to PM, "Array of variables" was on the screen and I just replied to that.
My response was a genuine reply to "Array of variables"; the accident was that I had been looking at replying to "Issues with XLSX.pm,".
In retrospect, my "mis-clicked" Update was probably not sufficiently clear;
also, I misinterpreted your "consider the node for re-parenting".
The consideration can be removed.
I'm about to put the title of post back to what it was originally.
I'll also strike out the "Note:" with a reference back to this node by way of explanation.
I'll also /msg gods requesting removal of my consideration;
which you can see if you transmogrify into your "ineffably resplendent form". :-)
My apologies for all the confusion.
| [reply] |