Timeline for Should this edit really have been rejected?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 23, 2017 at 12:35 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Feb 28, 2013 at 15:57 | comment | added | Shadow Wizard | @Waldir collaborative to some extent, and this extent is open for discussion... | |
| Feb 28, 2013 at 15:49 | comment | added | waldyrious | @ShaWizDowArd ok, I guess. It saddens me though, because this kind of action really harms the improvement of the resource we're attempting to collaboratively build. (At least, I try to keep believing it's collaborative...) | |
| Feb 28, 2013 at 15:48 | comment | added | Hugo Dozois | If you see that the answer is wrong, down vote it and comment why you down voted, or post your own answer with the correct code. | |
| Feb 28, 2013 at 15:45 | comment | added | Shadow Wizard | @Waldir there might be users who will agree with you. I'm not among them and will reject such edits. Let's just agree to disagree, and sorry I can't explain my point better. | |
| Feb 28, 2013 at 15:42 | comment | added | waldyrious | @ShaWizDowArd so the goal is to adhere to convention about proper way of action, rather than assessing each case by its own merits? If that was the case we could have bots rejecting edits that change too many characters, based on the size of the diff. I think the point of having humans perform the review is precisely to allow nuanced cases like this to receive better consideration. Above all, the goal of building a better resource should take priority over enforcing standard procedures. | |
| Feb 28, 2013 at 15:37 | comment | added | Shadow Wizard | @Waldir OK, maybe that's true. Still, on Stack Overflow the proper way of action is posting comment and having the post author fix such mistakes. Sorry you had to find out in the hard way. | |
| Feb 28, 2013 at 15:33 | comment | added | waldyrious | @ShaWizDowArd It's just common sense: The OP asked for HSL to RGB conversion, and the author of the answer linked to a page that contained both RBG to HSL and HSL to RGB code, and he copied the wrong one. That is obviously a mistake, no mind-reading needed! | |
| Feb 28, 2013 at 15:33 | comment | added | Hugo Dozois | To make such corrections would have been to write your own answer | |
| Feb 28, 2013 at 15:31 | comment | added | Shadow Wizard | @Waldir how do you know? Can you read minds? Even so, it's not your place to make such "corrections". | |
| Feb 28, 2013 at 15:30 | comment | added | waldyrious | I understand, but that was what the answerer actually intended. I didn't change what he meant. | |
| Feb 28, 2013 at 15:29 | comment | added | Bart | "The answer currently offers the opposite of what the question asked for"...then add your own correct answer instead. | |
| Feb 28, 2013 at 15:29 | answer | added | Floris | timeline score: 11 | |
| Feb 28, 2013 at 15:27 | comment | added | Shadow Wizard | Yes it should have been rejected. That's the perfect "radical change" example. This is not Wikipedia, user can't just change any post to anything he want on a whim. | |
| Feb 28, 2013 at 15:26 | history | asked | waldyrious | CC BY-SA 3.0 |