Timeline for Review action on signature
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 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/
|
|
| Mar 17, 2016 at 14:15 | comment | added | Kate Gregory | calling it spam is over the top. Save that for the handbags and streaming tv and love spell posts. If a promotional link can just be edited out, leaving a useful post, that's what you should do. | |
| Mar 17, 2016 at 14:05 | vote | accept | M.T | ||
| Mar 17, 2016 at 10:16 | comment | added | M.T | @IͶΔ I agree that "fluff" is undesired, but I suppose my question was more whether one should edit the answer or if some other action is more appropriate. | |
| Mar 17, 2016 at 10:14 | comment | added | M.A.R. | Any fluff that's not related to the answer should be removed. It's odd that you couldn't deduce the answer from the first post you linked. | |
| Mar 17, 2016 at 9:24 | answer | added | PolyGeo | timeline score: 4 | |
| Mar 17, 2016 at 8:59 | history | asked | M.T | CC BY-SA 3.0 |