Timeline for Why is the Server Fault community so unfriendly?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
27 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 11, 2020 at 10:00 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:14 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://serverfault.com/ with https://serverfault.com/
|
|
| Mar 17, 2017 at 10:13 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.serverfault.com/ with https://meta.serverfault.com/
|
|
| Mar 17, 2017 at 10:13 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.serverfault.com/ with https://meta.serverfault.com/
|
|
| Dec 4, 2014 at 21:14 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/ServerFault/status/540615252501889024 | ||
| Nov 22, 2014 at 6:34 | history | edited | Shane MaddenStaffMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Nov 21, 2014 at 14:14 | history | edited | HopelessN00b | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 3 characters in body
|
| Nov 21, 2014 at 14:12 | comment | added | Shog9 | Much better, @HopelessN00b. | |
| Nov 21, 2014 at 13:58 | comment | added | HopelessN00b | There we go. I've edited the post to improve the grammar, as Shog9 said he wanted, but without completely destroying the meaning of the post, as the community and the Stack Exchange guidelines on editing seem to want. Problem solved. | |
| Nov 21, 2014 at 13:56 | history | edited | HopelessN00b | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
See, ***this*** is how you improve a post's grammar. Not that proper grammr doesn't have to entirely change the question asked.
|
| Nov 21, 2014 at 6:01 | comment | added | Ward - Trying Codidact Mod |
The massive edit is clearly invalid because OP said they were not asking specifically about their own question that was closed: Sadly I am not referring to this particular question. I just took a look at serverfault question list and on first 2 pages I can only see questions with 0 or downvoted. – rumburak 18 hours ago So why totally change the question into something they didn't intend?
|
|
| Nov 21, 2014 at 4:10 | comment | added | Andrew B | I must politely decline. That is not how this community moderates itself. | |
| Nov 21, 2014 at 3:53 | comment | added | Shog9 | If you believe you have a better idea of what the intent was here, @Andrew, then go ahead and edit to clarify. Otherwise, wait for the author. I believe it is better now than it was, a readable question that can be answered for the benefit of the asker, which should be at least the initial goal. | |
| Nov 21, 2014 at 3:51 | comment | added | Andrew B | @Shog9 Actually, your edit was quite confusing. Having not recognized that your edit put forth an example that the user was not originally offering, I've incorrectly critiqued the user for backtracking on their question's wording. It's ironic for this to be occurring in a meta discussion where some of us are trying to steer the user towards behaviors that yield useful feedback from us. The fact that the user has contradicted you without rolling back the edit suggests that you are wrong. | |
| Nov 21, 2014 at 2:08 | comment | added | Shog9 | In regards to your other questions, see: blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/04/in-defense-of-editing and blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/05/a-theory-of-moderation | |
| Nov 21, 2014 at 2:05 | comment | added | Shog9 | When I found it, @Sven, this question was quite poorly written. The grammar, spelling, etc. were not great, but most notably it didn't even reference the question that prompted it - which, having been deleted, would be hard to find for even trusted members of the site. Although it had attracted three answers, no one had tried to address even the more superficial problems; instead, folks were just making fun of them in the comments. So I edited it for presentation and to match the top-voted answer. Perhaps this was not what the author intended - but of course, he's free to correct if need-be. | |
| Nov 21, 2014 at 1:43 | comment | added | Sven | @Shog9: Care to elaborate why you consider this "ill-advised"? You massively changed the meaning and tone of the question, which is a reason for a rollback. Should I (as another candidate) consider this a threat? What would be the result if you act upon that threat? Also, why do you think it's acceptable to do this kind of edit to a meta post? | |
| Nov 21, 2014 at 1:02 | comment | added | Shog9 | Trying to start an edit war when you're running for a moderator position is an astonishingly ill-advised thing to do, @Iain. If rumburak disagrees with my edit, he can roll it back himself. | |
| Nov 21, 2014 at 1:00 | history | rollback | Shog9 |
Rollback to Revision 2
|
|
| Nov 20, 2014 at 22:40 | answer | added | Andrew B | timeline score: 7 | |
| Nov 20, 2014 at 22:20 | comment | added | Andrew B | Please provide specific examples when talking about perceived behavior. Your question as worded frames yourself as a person with years of experience as an IT professional, yet in your discussion with Iain you switched tracks to "sadly I am not referring to this particular question. I just took a look at serverfault question list [...]. If that is the topic you want to discuss, your question should reflect it and provide examples of the behavior. | |
| Nov 20, 2014 at 22:13 | history | rollback | user9517 |
Rollback to Revision 1
|
|
| Nov 20, 2014 at 20:00 | comment | added | Ward - Trying Codidact Mod | Isn't the massive edit pointless since a) it completely changes the question and b) the question has been deleted by the author so that only a small # of people can possibly provide any suggestions. | |
| Nov 20, 2014 at 19:42 | history | edited | Shog9 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Those who would spend time critiquing spelling in the comments instead of clicking "edit" have had their fun; now it is time to do something constructive.
|
| Nov 20, 2014 at 15:06 | answer | added | Ward - Trying CodidactMod | timeline score: 10 | |
| Nov 20, 2014 at 10:43 | answer | added | user9517 | timeline score: 6 | |
| Nov 20, 2014 at 10:22 | history | asked | rumburak | CC BY-SA 3.0 |