Timeline for Dealing with blatant spam posts
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:14 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://serverfault.com/ with https://serverfault.com/
|
|
| May 24, 2014 at 13:40 | answer | added | Michael HamptonMod | timeline score: 14 | |
| Oct 11, 2012 at 14:52 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/ServerFault/status/256406898243407872 | ||
| Oct 10, 2012 at 4:29 | comment | added | John Gardeniers | The number of votes on your question and its answers, which is pretty high for Meta posts, should give you an inkling of how we feel about spam, which generally has a proportional response time. | |
| Oct 9, 2012 at 19:43 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | ||
| Oct 9, 2012 at 14:22 | comment | added | tombull89 | As a Sub-3k user, I'll just flag, downvote, and move on. Spam really don't hang around for long so I woudln't worry about adding something extra to the edit queue only for it be deleted a few moments later. | |
| Oct 9, 2012 at 14:20 | history | edited | voretaq7Mod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
SpellingFish Strikes Again!
|
| Oct 9, 2012 at 13:35 | answer | added | user9517Mod | timeline score: 22 | |
| Oct 9, 2012 at 13:33 | answer | added | MDMarra | timeline score: 5 | |
| Oct 9, 2012 at 13:04 | history | asked | user11604 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |