Skip to main content
21 events
when toggle format what by license comment
May 21 at 19:29 history edited Dave Newton CC BY-SA 4.0
edited body
Sep 15, 2017 at 18:45 comment added waka @DaveNewton: Yes, now that you mention it, it does make sense. I don't know where I picked up this habit, but I will make sure to do it right from now on. :)
Sep 15, 2017 at 17:22 comment added Dave Newton @waka ¯(°_o)/¯ I probably wouldn't use backticks for WinForms, but I would for System.Windows.Forms. I mean, if you're using emphasis in prose you don't monospace it, you bold or italicize, right?
Sep 15, 2017 at 15:13 comment added waka Since I am guilty of using backticks for emphasis (plus, never had an edit rejected because of doing so, so I really thought this was the right way of using it), I ask for clarification: highlighting System.Reflection would be ok, since it's a .NET namespace, but highlighting WinForms wouldn't, because it's the name of a specific toolkit?
Feb 29, 2016 at 9:42 comment added mcfedr I see so many edits doing this it nearly should be a preset answer, bad use of backticks
S Nov 3, 2014 at 7:33 history suggested 200_success CC BY-SA 3.0
Updated in light of http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2014/10/new-editing-badges-and-enhancements-to-suggested-edits
Nov 3, 2014 at 4:31 review Suggested edits
S Nov 3, 2014 at 7:33
Jul 28, 2013 at 19:44 comment added Dave Newton @MarkAmery Because (a) only so many hours in a day, and (b) this answer didn't exist as a de facto response until after I wrote it and people voted it up.
Jul 28, 2013 at 16:56 comment added Mark Amery Why reject as trivial? Wouldn't rejecting with a custom message linking to this question and answer be far more useful? E.g. Inline code spans should not be used for emphasis. See http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/135112/inline-code-spans-should-not-be-used-for-emphasis-right
Apr 21, 2013 at 15:04 comment added Dave Newton @J0e3gan I see no ambiguity: iOS is a product, and clearly differentiated from the other computery artifacts I list. Quibbling over this is not helpful; but have at it.
Apr 21, 2013 at 14:59 comment added J0e3gan @vcsjones raises a good point; and Dave Newton's follow-on comment is good; but the ambiguity comes from computery "artifiacts" in the answer. The term code-like artifacts used at the outset of the answer is clearer I think.
Apr 21, 2013 at 14:53 comment added Dave Newton @J0e3gan Except that formatting even a few keywords beats the minimum: such edits clog the review queues and are not significant enough to warrant making somebody approve it. IMO that kind of improvement should stay in the purview of those that no longer require their edits to be approved. Note that I used the logical operator "and" in that sentence, and I meant to do so.
Apr 21, 2013 at 14:52 comment added J0e3gan I agree AFA "used for code (and code-like artifacts)"; but I disagree AFA "[i]f that's the only change", the change still being useful by improving readability IMO; and it still has to meet the 6-character minimum for edits (i.e. at least 3 code or code-like artifacts that weren't backticked). If "it's wrongly-applied", I agree again; that's different - wrong being just that and, hence, not useful.
Oct 23, 2012 at 21:31 history edited Dave Newton CC BY-SA 3.0
deleted 8 characters in body
Oct 23, 2012 at 17:42 history edited Dave Newton CC BY-SA 3.0
deleted 7 characters in body
Sep 3, 2012 at 19:50 history edited Dave Newton CC BY-SA 3.0
added 181 characters in body
Jun 10, 2012 at 19:06 comment added Donal Fellows I agree with this totally, and have been using it as a basis for rejecting edits (or a reason for doing edits myself to undo/change) for a few months.
Jun 8, 2012 at 17:15 vote accept vcsjones
Jun 8, 2012 at 16:26 comment added Dave Newton @vcsjones No, it isn't, because it's not something you'd type into a computer as a command, or get back from same.
Jun 8, 2012 at 15:57 comment added vcsjones I agree, but "computery thing" tends to be what causes problems. Is iOS a "computery" thing? Yes. Should it be a code span? No.
Jun 8, 2012 at 13:59 history answered Dave Newton CC BY-SA 3.0