16 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jun 3 '20 at 13:30 history edited CommunityBot
Commonmark migration
Dec 31 '17 at 8:00 comment added iBug says Reinstate Monica @ShadowtheHedgehogWizard OK I understand. Let's leave this post alone. A single typo won't do too much bad.
Dec 31 '17 at 7:54 comment added Shadow Wizard Hates Omicron @iDebug oh, for some reason thought you changed "awfully hard" to "awful hard" (too much green and red got me confused), but still.... that's indeed a typo, but you should have just edited that. All the rest has no real point. You're right, no meaning change, but still... if there is only a typo and nothing else is really wrong, just fixing the typo is enough. No need to touch the URL's, etc.
Dec 31 '17 at 7:48 comment added iBug says Reinstate Monica @ShadowtheHedgehogWizard Can you elaborate a little more about "changed meaning"?
Dec 31 '17 at 7:45 comment added Shadow Wizard Hates Omicron @iDebug you did not fix any grammar, you just made it worse. You just added some quotes, italics, and changed meaning of a sentence. That is not a good or valid edit. Also please stop removing the title stub from questions URL's, it has no real point and having it there help people see where the link actually lead. If you worry about post length then don't, those 20-30 extra characters will not cause any trouble.
Dec 31 '17 at 7:44 history rollback Shadow Wizard Hates Omicron
Rollback to Revision 4
Dec 31 '17 at 7:40 history edited iBug says Reinstate Monica CC BY-SA 3.0
Mar 20 '17 at 9:43 history edited CommunityBot
replaced http://meta.stackoverflow.com/ with https://meta.stackoverflow.com/
Oct 28 '15 at 15:14 history edited Shog9 CC BY-SA 3.0
added 547 characters in body
Sep 30 '15 at 0:13 comment added Shog9 Yeah, that sentence was plenty awkward; reworded.
Sep 30 '15 at 0:13 history edited Shog9 CC BY-SA 3.0
rework awkward sentence
Sep 29 '15 at 23:51 comment added Jon Ericson Excellent. It's hard to object to that scheme except it would require slightly more complicated logic to implement. I think I misread "it would make a lot of links public" which sounds more ominous than it does after a more careful reading.
Sep 29 '15 at 23:46 comment added Shog9 First clarification: your complete review history is not public. Critically, deleted posts do not appear in your activity feed. They are visible in your per-queue review history, but this itself is only visible to you and 10K+ users (who can already see deleted posts and thus review others' review history). Second clarification: this would only make any post that has been reviewed visible if you know the review task ID and you reviewed it. And you can already find the former from your history (noted above).
Sep 29 '15 at 23:32 comment added Jon Ericson Just so the implications are clear, this would mean any post that has been reviewed could be visible if you know the review task ID. There would be no easy way to find, say, all of the reviewed posts from a specific user or reviewed questions in a specific tag. (Short of brute force, I can't think of any method.) But since a user's list of old reviews tasks are publically visible, it will be possible to evaluate the review history of other users including reviews of now deleted posts. Is that accurate?
Sep 25 '15 at 2:25 history bounty ended Brad Larson
Sep 25 '15 at 0:11 history answered Shog9 CC BY-SA 3.0