<p>Like so much around here, this pivots on the slight tension between </p>

<ol>
<li><p>Individual posters with short-term goals of getting an answer, who almost always want to express appreciation of your attention, their need for an answer, their gratitude if you provide one, and so forth. That's all fine, and I have no inclination to dismiss or downplay politeness. </p></li>
<li><p>The long-term goals of the forum, of building up posts with concise, clear and correct questions and answers as an archive for all interested. These goals are what drive a desire to cut out material that doesn't help technical understanding. Even cutting 5% of a post that isn't needed is 5% cut for possibly many future readers in a busy world. Questions and answers are public statements that happen to be written by individuals, rather than personal statements that happen to be visible widely. </p></li>
</ol>

<p>I say: We really can assume goodwill from essentially all concerned, except in a very few cases, and those separately require different treatment. So, although naive or new posters sometimes pad their posts, the silent reply is Thanks for the thanks, but we don't need that. Sometimes I will comment on the point if it seems appropriate, but I can't claim to be consistent on that. Sometimes I am in a hurry too, and irritated by someone's sloppy and careless presentation (with latitude when it's evident that English is not the first language). </p>

<p>I edit quite frequently. I usually edit for concise style, improved grammar, spelling and punctuation, and improved presentation of mathematics and code; but I will also cut down emotive content, including not only extended thanks, over-lengthy personal statements, and pleas of desperation or urgency. I think it's germane that those edits are very rarely reversed, although it is clearly very possible that many people never noticed, or did notice and disapprove, but lack the time and inclination to do anything about it. </p>
