Timeline for Make reviewers explain why they accept a suggested edit
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:18 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://superuser.com/ with https://superuser.com/
|
|
| Mar 17, 2017 at 10:12 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.superuser.com/ with https://meta.superuser.com/
|
|
| Mar 17, 2017 at 10:12 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.superuser.com/ with https://meta.superuser.com/
|
|
| Feb 3, 2012 at 18:36 | history | edited | Daniel BeckMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added screenshot as requested by Sathya
|
| Feb 3, 2012 at 17:19 | answer | added | studiohack | timeline score: 3 | |
| Feb 3, 2012 at 17:18 | history | edited | studiohack |
edited tags
|
|
| Dec 11, 2011 at 8:04 | answer | added | soandos | timeline score: 2 | |
| Dec 9, 2011 at 8:50 | answer | added | Richard | timeline score: 6 | |
| Dec 9, 2011 at 8:21 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackSuper_User/status/145055377615106049 | ||
| Dec 7, 2011 at 19:26 | comment | added | Daniel Beck Mod | To the persons down voting and/or voting to close: This is supposed to be a discussion. Please participate, and if it's just to tell me how I am wrong and why you think so. Thanks! | |
| Dec 7, 2011 at 19:24 | history | edited | Daniel BeckMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
extended examples section
|
| Dec 6, 2011 at 22:24 | comment | added | Shog9 | Naturally, any user of any site is welcome to post on MSO if they so desire. But badgering users to do so - or closing their requests if they don't - is discouraged. | |
| Dec 6, 2011 at 22:22 | comment | added | nhinkle | @TomWijsman here is the official post: "Which meta should I post on?" Specifically, Rebecca Chernoff says: "I can't stand it when I see a post on a child meta and the first comment is 'You should have posted this on MSO'. ARGGGGGGGGG" | |
| Dec 6, 2011 at 22:16 | comment | added | nhinkle | @TomWijsman I'm unaware of a specific reference but moderators have been specifically instructed by the community team to inform users that feature requests for network-wide things are allowed on per-site metas. | |
| Dec 6, 2011 at 22:12 | comment | added | Arjan | I would also like an optional/voluntary free-text accept comment, like after investigating if an edit is legit, to pass thoughts to the next reviewer on sites where two approvals are required. | |
| Dec 6, 2011 at 21:39 | comment | added | Daniel Beck Mod | @Tom please discuss this in a separate topic on the meta site of your choice. | |
| Dec 6, 2011 at 21:39 | history | edited | Tamara Wijsman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 606 characters in body
|
| Dec 6, 2011 at 21:07 | comment | added | Ivo Flipse | @TomWijsman it doesn't have to go to MSO, these discussions can be held on any Meta. If they team agrees they'll let us know regardless on what Meta we are. | |
| Dec 6, 2011 at 21:06 | comment | added | nhinkle | @Tom FYI users are allowed (and encouraged) to post network-wide feature requests for changes to the functionality of the Stack Exchange engine to their individual site metas. If Daniel wants this migrated to MSO we can do that, but it's perfectly fine here. | |
| Dec 6, 2011 at 20:58 | comment | added | Daniel Beck Mod | @TomWijsman Just off the top of my head: Significant improvements to formatting and highlighting / Significant grammar and spelling corrections (making the post actually readable) / Made post easier to find (e.g. tags, adding keywords) / Removed unnecessary or repeated content (Hi all! So I was out taking a walk through the park on Sunday and thought about... Thanks!) / Added new information (e.g. when content was added in a comment only, or original content by the editor) / Content corrections (if the user actually got parts of his post wrong). | |
| Dec 6, 2011 at 20:05 | history | asked | Daniel BeckMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |