Timeline for Moderator Bans Using "Father"
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 4, 2018 at 6:29 | history | edited | wizzwizz4Mod | CC BY-SA 4.0 | added 187 characters in body |
| May 2, 2018 at 21:45 | comment | added | wizzwizz4 Mod | You've omitted the beginning of the first chat message you quoted, which contained important context... I've tried my hardest not to misrepresent your actions, but this is my reasoning (followed by a rebuttal of some of your meta question) and is subject to bias. However much I tried to reduce said bias. I feel that it would be a misrepresentation to try to rationalise my actions after the fact; I would like to be informed of the flaws in my reasoning so that I might correct them. | |
| May 2, 2018 at 14:48 | comment | added | jwzumwalt | It was the REASON for the meta note and added at the same time; the meta note is describing that sentence - just quoting the meta note makes it out of context. It should be added just before the meta quote as was done in the original post. "This question is not about who created assembly language but rather the person or research group that was primarily responsible for promoting, popularizing, or making commonly accepted the assembly language syntax that we are now familiar with?" | |
| May 1, 2018 at 21:21 | history | edited | wizzwizz4Mod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | Emphasised reverted useful thing, reduced "ranty" description. |
| May 1, 2018 at 21:14 | comment | added | wizzwizz4 Mod | @jwzumwalt No, that's not part of the meta note. I did remove it by clicking "revert", though; I'll make that more clear. | |
| May 1, 2018 at 21:02 | comment | added | jwzumwalt | Included as part of want you call the "Ranty Meta Note" is a missing sentence that said "This question is not about who created assembly language..." | |
| May 1, 2018 at 19:56 | history | edited | wizzwizz4Mod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | Added question analysis. |
| May 1, 2018 at 19:29 | comment | added | wizzwizz4 Mod | @jwzumwalt To be blunt, at least they tried to provide a suitable alternative. (Two, in fact (as you are probably aware), though one was rejected by others before it was made public.) | |
| May 1, 2018 at 19:27 | comment | added | jwzumwalt | I would also like to point out (my general belief) that there is no shortage of whiners on forums, but unless they provide a suitable alternative - it should be treated as noise. The Meta started with more negative feedback, but momentum has picked up and now there is more positive support for my view point then negative. | |
| May 1, 2018 at 19:25 | comment | added | wizzwizz4 Mod | @jwzumwalt Edits aren't for communication, and meta is the right place for this sort of thing. I'm sorry that you felt that you as a person were being blocked. However, your intent wasn't that clear. | |
| May 1, 2018 at 19:17 | comment | added | jwzumwalt | "I would embrace another choice of words if it conveyed the same thought in as few words." I invited suggestions to convey the same thought, and clearly defined my intent - then it was deleted, the meaning changed and blocked. I was unable to communicate any further. | |
| May 1, 2018 at 19:01 | comment | added | wizzwizz4 Mod | @jwzumwalt Then why did you revert instead of changing the title to one of those? Those are good suggestions! :-) | |
| May 1, 2018 at 18:54 | comment | added | jwzumwalt | This was my meta statement: I rolled it back because the moderator completely changed the scope of my question - and deleted the explanation. The question was changed for political not technical reasons. Who made assembly language with the current syntax popular, would be sufficient. Or, Who popularized the current assembly language syntax? might be better... | |
| May 1, 2018 at 18:49 | comment | added | wizzwizz4 Mod | @jwzumwalt "I don't think others will agree" Note that your question has received three upvotes (one from me; although I don't agree with you I think posting the meta question was the right decision) and one downvote. Plus, the comments against the title had more upvotes than the ones for. You make great contributions, but isn't this a bit... well, petty – to participate in a heated argument over? | |
| May 1, 2018 at 18:43 | history | edited | wizzwizz4Mod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | Addressed the ranty meta note. |
| May 1, 2018 at 18:41 | comment | added | wizzwizz4 Mod | @jwzumwalt It's in the edit history, but I'll reproduce it here. | |
| May 1, 2018 at 18:39 | comment | added | jwzumwalt | "The OP added a ranty meta note", please reproduce that remark, I don't think others will agree with your judgment and it explained the scope and intent of my question - which you deleted. My ONLY objection was changing the intent or meaning (Title) of my question which I clarified and you deleted. | |
| May 1, 2018 at 16:51 | history | answered | wizzwizz4Mod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |