Timeline for Not reopening question based on whether edit was significant
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 29, 2013 at 0:39 | comment | added | psubsee2003 | @Qantas94Heavy I think horrible is a bit of a stretch. It is well written and contains all of the pertinent info, which is better than 50% of the recent questions on SO. | |
| Oct 29, 2013 at 0:35 | comment | added | Dennis Meng | Plus, the question currently being open shows that others also thought it was worth reopening. | |
| Oct 29, 2013 at 0:34 | comment | added | Qantas 94 Heavy | That's a horrible audit - not your fault there. | |
| Oct 29, 2013 at 0:32 | vote | accept | sashkello | ||
| Oct 29, 2013 at 0:31 | comment | added | sashkello | Audit was on this question: stackoverflow.com/questions/19473996/… I don't think it is a case of bad audit, just myself confused about things. | |
| S Oct 29, 2013 at 0:28 | history | suggested | Qantas 94 Heavy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Improved wording, add review audit
|
| Oct 29, 2013 at 0:26 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Oct 29, 2013 at 0:28 | |||||
| Oct 29, 2013 at 0:06 | comment | added | Dennis Meng | Any chance you can link us to the failed audit? It could also be that the specific audit was bad. | |
| Oct 28, 2013 at 23:55 | answer | added | Servy | timeline score: 9 | |
| Oct 28, 2013 at 23:51 | history | asked | sashkello | CC BY-SA 3.0 |