Timeline for No roll-back option on edit
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 30, 2012 at 11:55 | comment | added | Bruno | @ChrisS, sorry, I really didn't mean it in an offensive way. We all makes mistakes once in a while, I certainly do. I just found your edit at the time a bit odd, putting words that the OP had never said. I'm not not sure this sort of editing (coming from mods or anyone else who can edit) is a good idea, that's all. | |
| Sep 30, 2012 at 3:15 | comment | added | Chris S Mod | "Why a mod would introduce a statement that could be considered as misleading"... 1. Um, thanks for the "compliment" 2. Mods are human, apparently you've never done something others think is a mistake, but the rest of us... pretty much daily 3. It was partially intentional as the OP had some apparent misunderstandings about the various protocols and the mod wanted that reflected in the Question; more so because the Answer points out the correct information. | |
| Sep 29, 2012 at 21:29 | comment | added | Bruno | No worries. It seems that the idea of editing that question isn't so popular after all anyway (I got a downvote today on the associated meta question). Why a mod would introduce a statement that could be considered as misleading in a question is not clear to me, more so because it also makes some previous answers look silly (see comments on the last one, for example). I'm not sure what to do about this... | |
| Sep 29, 2012 at 21:17 | comment | added | John Gardeniers | When I looked at that question the oldest version was not what you say it was, which is why I said what I said. However, as I also did not have the roll-back option it is possible that the page I saw was incomplete. However, I can only go on what I personally see. | |
| Sep 29, 2012 at 12:29 | history | answered | Bruno | CC BY-SA 3.0 |