Skip to main content
25 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jan 18, 2021 at 12:13 history edited CommunityBot
replaced http://data.stackexchange.com/ with https://data.stackexchange.com/
Jan 18, 2021 at 11:45 history edited CommunityBot
replaced http://blog.stackoverflow.com with https://blog.stackoverflow.com
Mar 20, 2017 at 10:31 history edited CommunityBot
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
Jul 6, 2015 at 23:46 answer added Halil Sen timeline score: 0
Sep 25, 2014 at 23:46 answer added apaul timeline score: 0
Sep 24, 2014 at 22:49 answer added Shog9StaffMod timeline score: 28
Sep 9, 2014 at 14:31 comment added Shog9 StaffMod The rationale is given here, @TylerH - I'm not interested in debating it here, as it is part of a larger problem. The rest of the rejection reasons have some issues as well, but I do believe they can be salvaged / augmented / replaced.
Sep 9, 2014 at 13:25 comment added TylerH I read this post and I still don't see a reason for removing the "Too Minor" rejection option, other than "I want to remove it", which is no reason at all. I also disagree with all the other suggested changes to the appropriate use of each of the remaining options, without an array of alternatives already put forward to replace the lost "choices" that were used more than any of the choices that have remained. I do not like such unanticipated, unilateral action.
Sep 9, 2014 at 13:22 comment added TylerH @tchrist Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
Sep 9, 2014 at 3:30 comment added user213963 Elsewhere you made a comment about "Under X characters, where X is between 6 and 600?" --- It is still necessary for non-2k users to make edits of a 'substantial' nature (see for example, fixing a typo of 'now' to 'know' and 'it's' to 'its' programmers.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/76440 ). It is disappointing to need to approve such other rewordings to actually see the improvement in the post.
Sep 9, 2014 at 2:32 history edited Jonathan Leffler CC BY-SA 3.0
moreso --> more so
Sep 8, 2014 at 23:40 answer added bjb568 timeline score: 14
Sep 8, 2014 at 22:42 comment added Braiam This is live, right?
Aug 21, 2014 at 19:43 comment added Shog9 StaffMod I suspect most of us have, @Barmar.
Aug 21, 2014 at 19:42 comment added Barmar I don't agree with the way you're talking about replacing "too minor". Sometimes I consider the original post good enough, the only problem is minor spelling or grammar problems. I don't see the need for an alternate edit, I think the question can be left as is. That's why I currently reject the edit as too minor. Have I been on the Internet too long, so I've become accustomed to crappy writing?
Aug 21, 2014 at 4:17 comment added bjb568 @tchtist Ignorance is the problem we're trying to solve here...
Aug 21, 2014 at 3:34 comment added tchrist @bjb568 Approvers of plagiarism should get a penalty? Can’t they plead ignorance of the law?
Aug 21, 2014 at 1:02 answer added Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' timeline score: 13
Aug 21, 2014 at 0:23 comment added bjb568 @random The submitter and approvers of plagiarism should have a reputation penalty, after mixed plagiarism/approve go to a mod queue to confirm.
Aug 21, 2014 at 0:18 comment added tchrist You mention “in favor of being implicitly chosen by the system”; does the system currently have a set of criteria for this (other than too short), or would you be adding a new facility for it to do so, or would you just be enhancing the auto-detector in some fashion?
Aug 21, 2014 at 0:16 comment added Braiam @random ... by people that don't even check.
Aug 21, 2014 at 0:05 comment added random "copied content" gets used less because by the time you check and choose it it's already been approved
Aug 21, 2014 at 0:03 answer added Adam LearStaffMod timeline score: 4
Aug 20, 2014 at 23:47 history edited Shog9StaffMod CC BY-SA 3.0
added 113 characters in body
Aug 20, 2014 at 23:41 history asked Shog9StaffMod CC BY-SA 3.0