Timeline for Should 'fuck' be present in review audits (intentionally fake suggested edit reviews)?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:31 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Apr 24, 2014 at 13:52 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Migration of MSO links to MSE links
|
|
| Nov 26, 2013 at 17:47 | comment | added | apaul | @Yannis Seems to make it more of an issue, we really should filter that sort of stuff out... Imagine what a problem that could have created on some of the other sites in the network. | |
| Nov 26, 2013 at 17:43 | comment | added | apaul | @Yannis it appears you're right, just saw that too. | |
| Nov 26, 2013 at 17:43 | comment | added | yannis | Hm, the audit edits are indeed auto generated, but I'm not so sure about the edit descriptions. See: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/209033/… | |
| Nov 26, 2013 at 17:40 | history | edited | yannis | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added link to Kevin's answer for reference.
|
| Nov 26, 2013 at 17:36 | comment | added | apaul | @Yannis not sure about that, many look like they just scoop random words from other posts and mix them in. | |
| Nov 26, 2013 at 17:31 | history | answered | apaul | CC BY-SA 3.0 |