« first day (4009 days earlier)      last day (34 days later) » 

7:18 AM
0
Q: How much can an answer be modified before it should be its own entity?

matigoAn edit is in the review queue for this answer and it’s clear that the author of the edit is doing everyone a favour with the additional details being added: Given how drastic the “hijack” of the answer is, should this be an additional answer that can be voted upon based on its merit, or is the ...

 
 
13 hours later…
8:17 PM
@terdon regarding this post and the conversation we had, I think I get why we had a miscommunication. As a non-native english speaker, I consider the "attempt to reply" as "an attempt to reply to the question's OP through an edit of the answer". I don't get exactly what else is meant by "attempt to reply", as an answer wouldn't contain a question in general, at which an editor would reply, but I suppose you understand it differently.
So I would be glad if you could explain a bit more how you comprehend this!
 
8:35 PM
Oh! I see, @BeastOfCaerbannog. No, it means it is an attempt to reply to the original answer. It's for cases where the OP asks "How can I paint the wall red?" and an answer suggests "use red paint" and then someone submits an edit that inserts "But I don't have any red paint!" into the answer.
So the text means that the edit to the answer is attempting to reply to the answer itself. Not that it is a reply to the original question, but instead a response to the answer.
> Attempt to reply (to the _answer_)
This edit was intended to address the author of the post (the answer) and makes no sense as an edit. It should have been written as a comment or an answer.
 
@terdon thank you! So there it is! You're right then for insisting on this. Sorry for the frustration I might have caused..
 
@BeastOfCaerbannog Please! No frustration at all. We had a very healthy meta discussion where both sides have expressed their position. That's a good thing!
 
However, I don't think it is a frequent thing that someone replies to an answer, and I suppose that more reviewers understand it as I do. Do you think that the wording could be improved on this?
@terdon :)
 
It probably should be improved, yes. If it confused you, I'm sure it will confuse others. You may not be a native speaker, but your English is really very good, so I am sure others will also find it strange if you did.
 
@terdon thanks for your compliment! Do you know if this is a thing that can be changed in AU, so I can ask a meta question, or should it be asked in MSE?
 
8:53 PM
MSE, for sure.
 
9:31 PM
Ok, thanks!
 

« first day (4009 days earlier)      last day (34 days later) » 
https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/201/2021/9/20
chat.stackexchange.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2021-43
25898
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:2FZPVRF7TADKPGV5TJQLWQWYIBRMYVMA
<urn:uuid:66d50d88-0244-4e1f-9e18-2ade83bb20cd>
2021-10-25T04:55:07Z
198.252.206.29
application/xhtml+xml
sha1:CG6Y6EFV2SFCIJXPXN7OI2SN6N6ZAGZW
<urn:uuid:7978e999-806d-4e7b-9588-1d89ac608d9c>
https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/201/2021/9/20
response
<urn:uuid:ce46c774-07b2-4efa-bad6-48944adc2017>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2021-43
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for October 2021
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-132
software: Apache Nutch 1.18 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/