5

The "Changing your Meta name on a whim" answer in The Many Memes of Meta is locked.

The info text says:

This post has been locked while disputes about its content are being resolved. For more info visit meta.

Why? And when will it be unlocked again so we can edit it?

Edit: Jeremy Banks says:

I flagged and asked that it be locked (and changed my name to say the same) because I was annoyed by it constantly being bumped.

Seriously? Look at the edit history, guys. There were 12 edits last year. That's an update every 30.41111 days caused by editing that answer. So the post bumps up once a month and that is a problem? Compare that to the 5-6 off-topic questions that enter Meta every day.

Please unlock the answer.

Improve this question
16
  • I flagged and asked that it be locked (and changed my name to say the same) because I was annoyed by it constantly being bumped. >_> edit: my flag message: "This post being bumped to the front page so frequently is really silly. Please (re)consider locking it. (If you're a ♦ developer you could also the requested ability to view username history, making edits somewhat redundant.)"
    – Jeremy
    Jan 14, 2012 at 22:27
  • @Jeremy I added an update.
    – Pekka
    Jan 14, 2012 at 22:31
  • 5
    +1 - Locking a question/answer because it is being bumped is a silly reason.
    – Oded
    Jan 14, 2012 at 22:37
  • The last page of revisions has come at a rate closer to once a week, but when I asked for the lock I thought that it was much more frequent than that. You're right, the lock is unnecessary.
    – Jeremy
    Jan 14, 2012 at 22:38
  • @Jeremy yeah. (To be fair, I counted Neal's two edits as one because they were so close to each other.)
    – Pekka
    Jan 14, 2012 at 22:39
  • Unlocking it was a mistake, IMO. I wish I kept it locked when I locked it.
    – Kyle Cronin
    Jan 14, 2012 at 22:40
  • 1
    @Oded Nitpick: The question wasn't locked, just a particular answer.
    – Jeremy
    Jan 14, 2012 at 22:41
  • 1
    @Kyle because having it bump on the front page once a month is that big a problem? Really? I don't see it - there is so much real crap on Meta on a daily basis, what's the problem with one post floating by that you know you can ignore if you're not interested?
    – Pekka
    Jan 14, 2012 at 22:41
  • 2
    @Pekka Because it's stupid and pointless. There's a lot of that here, and it's part of the reason I'm much, much less active than I used to be.
    – Kyle Cronin
    Jan 14, 2012 at 22:44
  • 5
    @Kyle I'm not sure I follow. I'm sure you agree there's a lot less craziness on Meta than there used to be in the olden days. And so what if a few guys maintain some less-than-serious posts? What's the harm? It's not the the site is littered with them. I find having a "I got downvoted and now I think downvotes must have a mandatory explanation and you're all pricks anyway" post every week much more irksome.
    – Pekka
    Jan 14, 2012 at 22:48
  • 3
    @Pekka I'm just offering my personal opinion. I had this conversation two years ago and I'm not interested in having it again.
    – Kyle Cronin
    Jan 14, 2012 at 22:51
  • @Kyle well, the parameters have changed rather massively - as stated above, the answer had an average of one edit per month in 2011. I still don't see how that can be seriously annoying anybody. But either way, we don't need to repeat the discussion.
    – Pekka
    Jan 14, 2012 at 22:55
  • How about we keep all those off-topic posts away then?
    – Ivo Flipse
    Jan 14, 2012 at 22:57
  • 3
    @Ivo I don't think a new question in the style of Many Memes of Meta would stand a chance today, and that's fine. But I wouldn't want to be active on a Meta where there can't be some percentage of mindless fun.
    – Pekka
    Jan 14, 2012 at 22:59
  • 3
    @bruce yeah, and what good reason is there for that except for the fact that you don't like it?
    – Pekka
    Jan 14, 2012 at 23:05

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
6

Unlocked, although I agree that editing (even only once a month) to maintain that list is kind of pointless. Especially in light of the new "see past names" feature.

Improve this answer
3
  • 4
    "See past names" doesn't cut it. You might be forgetting that's diamond only, but ordinary plebes can't just go to Welbogs profile and learn that he's half the names you see around meta. Silly as it sounds, this answer is actually a useful resource.
    – John
    Jan 15, 2012 at 2:30
  • 1
    @John My bad. I thought it was at least a 10k feature. Still, are we going to maintain a list of everyone's name changes now? If not, that answer is marginally useful at best. If yes, it's a ridiculous proposition. To be honest, I wouldn't even call it a meme. "Some people change their names" is more in line with just normal feature use. /shrug
    – Adam Lear StaffMod
    Jan 15, 2012 at 2:37
  • 2
    @Anna thanks for the unlock. I'm not claiming it makes a lot of sense - but some of us like to change their names frequently, and sometimes documenting them if they're hilarious. As long as bumping doesn't get out of hand, I don't think we're doing too much harm.
    – Pekka
    Jan 15, 2012 at 11:00

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .