Timeline for Radically editing closed questions
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 4, 2020 at 15:34 | history | edited | CommunityBot | Commonmark migration | |
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:40 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/ | |
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:29 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/ | |
| Mar 16, 2017 at 16:03 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ | |
| Mar 16, 2017 at 16:03 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ | |
| Oct 23, 2015 at 18:12 | comment | added | Qmechanic Mod | Here I collect for later some examples of heavily edited questions which presumably still respects the original author: (Better examples hopefully to come): here, here. | |
| Mar 19, 2015 at 14:42 | vote | accept | Kyle Kanos | ||
| Feb 21, 2015 at 12:17 | comment | added | Danu | I do think that it's of critical importance here to make it clear why the edits were made (mostly by me), as it makes this case a very special one. There was a (very) good answer in the comments by someone who'd clearly written it up before it was closed, and the main point was to improve the clarity of the question to allow the good answer to survive as a proper answer. I think that the fact that you completely left this out of your post here represents a significant misrepresentation of the situation at hand. | |
| Feb 20, 2015 at 21:03 | answer | added | Shog9StaffMod | timeline score: 12 | |
| Feb 20, 2015 at 20:57 | answer | added | David ZMod | timeline score: 4 | |
| Feb 20, 2015 at 20:49 | comment | added | Kyle Kanos | @JimdalftheGrey: Well if the consensus is that the policy of the site is that such radical changes are accepted, then nothing needs to occur. I put the follow up in the case that the community agrees it's wrong. | |
| Feb 20, 2015 at 20:46 | comment | added | Jim | So, it's pretty clear this is leaning to one side of the "What should we do" question (so much for neutral wording). But whatever. At least maybe now we can get a general consensus on how much editing is acceptable from non-OP users on closed questions | |
| Feb 20, 2015 at 20:23 | comment | added | dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Mod | While it does not appear to be the case this time, some user who have been affected by the question ban try to use the editing mechanism as a way to evade the ban. In those cases, please flag. | |
| Feb 20, 2015 at 20:20 | history | asked | Kyle Kanos | CC BY-SA 3.0 |