Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Simon Byrne/archive1

Breaking up other users' posts
and = posts by, break up the comments of. Best not to break up other users' posts and edit in-between them. Breaks up their signature as well, and makes it confusing for other later users to read. Please do not do this. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 07:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Posted request for and  to look into this. -- Cirt (talk) 07:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You can ask Queen Victoria herself, but I shall refute points in my way or not at all.  Giacomo   07:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: The disruption has now been added by, a 3rd time = . Would appreciate one of the FAR delegates moving this to below the post by , and not interspersed. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 07:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused as to what the problem is here. There is no problem with interspersing replies, this is done on a regular basis, and can be found in many of the other FARs on this page. Not sure why you have an issue with it here, Cirt? This format is also common practice at FAC, and I know I've done it on most of my FACS. I actually think it makes the discussion easier to read because you don't have to keep scrolling back and forth to figure out which reply applies to which point, but that's just my opinion. As far as FAR goes, there is no problem with interspersing replies as long as the interjections are properly signed (which Giano did). Dana boomer (talk) 11:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it begins a back-and-forth process by which the original user's comments are hard to see, because there is no signature for them, as it is pushed all the way to the bottom. This is why it is best to add new comments below. -- Cirt (talk) 11:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * For example, the first point by the original commenter, now appears to have no signature. In addition, the numbering format by the original commenter is now broken, and there are three 1's displayed, instead of "1", followed by "2". -- Cirt (talk) 11:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Now fixed, we are just missing the signature for the original commenter. -- Cirt (talk) 12:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)