This looks like a pretty good place to hide a hat.
Congratulations, you've earned the Bolt Start hat. See your profile.
In August 2009 the IAAF announced that from January 2010, a zero-tolerance stance to false-starts would be adopted. Athletes false starting are now immediately disqualified. The following year the rule led to prominent ...
Agreed; the current wording can be pretty confusing from what I've seen.
While a custom message may be the best, why not add a compulsory field where the mod can list some/all the bad reviews made by the user? This will ensure that examples are given, so the user will know which reviews were bad and can learn from it (or put a focused complaint on meta as ...
The UI now prompts you for a custom message when banning a user:
This is optional - but if you do enter a message, it will be displayed to the user if they try to review anything within the ban period:
Please note that if you're going to take the time to do this, you should strive to be as detailed and helpful as possible, pointing out specific areas where ...
You're misunderstanding this. "Hate" here does not refer to the verb for "extreme and hostile dislike"; it's a short form of "hat erasure". The etymology is explained in this episode of the "History of Words" podcast.
I rather suspect anyone seeing this will have already seen a dozen variations on it, since they'll have been sitting there impatiently clicking while waiting for the day to tick over.
But if anyone gets it into their head to actually special-case this ridiculously obscure scenario, the only appropriate message is surely,
Click more slowly!
I think it's a good idea - to me, it isn't immediately clear that you must earn the reputation exclusively through other people's votes on that site, given the original description alone (I can see that I have that much reputation - how is it not on this site?). I assume the reputation link goes to the general FAQ on reputation, which also doesn't address ...
Here's my attempt:
In the election phase, 10 candidates advance to final community voting. Candidates are displayed in random order.
Any community member with 150 reputation may vote in the election. Each voter may select up to three candidates. Please make your selections in order of preference, with the most desirable candidate as first choice.
We will ...
Looking at what done for this question, https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions reports 4 votes, but the question actually got 6 votes: 5 up-votes, and 1 down-vote.
4 is really the score of the question: the difference between the number of up-votes, and the number of down-votes. Votes for me means the number of votes, not the score a post has.
It is not misusing it.
(See what I did there?)
No, but seriously. The pronoun is not being misused there, it is just being reused to refer to two different objects. That's totally legit, but it can be kind of confusing if you don't already have some context that helps you to figure out what the person is trying to say.
So it wouldn't hurt to reword it to ...
Nicael, it is nice to have you back.
Although you are totally right on this being something to fix, I do need to tell you something.
The current votes on your question, and your previous questions, show that most users in this community don't think such bug reports are useful. The ongoing list of typographical issues that are not that relevant compared to ...
I've gone through the codebase and updated a bunch of places that had "offensive" to "rude or abusive" (or similar - I did what made sense according to context).
This has been deployed already.
Please let me know if you find any that I've missed.
The definition of temporary (Oxford English) is:
lasting for only a limited period of time; not permanent.
So the answer to
Is 10 years temporary?
Is "yes". 10 years is a limited period of time that isn't permanent.
You might personally prefer to use a different wording, and by all means suggest one. But strictly speaking, the current phrasing is ...
I think that just having "on this site" alone is not enough.
When a user looks at their rep on the top right hand corner, there is no distinction between bonus rep and site rep. In the mind of the user, that number is their rep for this site, since they are oblivious to how SE internally counts rep.
This is reinforced because on the privilidges up to 100 ...
I thought you were going to say that the wrong part was bolded. I think that's more the case. The current formulation has always bothered me a little, but I never spent enough time thinking about it to realize why. (Well, aside from the fact that it doesn't belong under the off-topic heading.)
Rather than emphasizing a person's ignorance (yes, I know that's ...
It reads just fine to me. For this to be an issue, you'd have to have somebody land on the site, visit a protected question, read the message (unlikely), find another question, and post a "me too", all without reading any of the other more prominent stuff telling them not to do this.
The site rules clearly say not to do this. Why would you expect ...
I was prompted by some speculation in comments to build a timeline:
2014-04-13 01:37Z: One week after the latest vote.
2014-04-12 19:04Z: Badge awarded
2014-04-12 18:15Z: One week after asking.
2014-04-06 02:55Z: Question edited, at which point it was at +1/-1.
2014-04-06 01:37Z: You get a downvote for this question. (from your rep history)
The choice of words might be glib to the original author of the dialog box, but it really does bother some of us. It's not simply being sensitive about a “bad word” used by someone else. Rather, it's asking us to make a statement about ourselves, using a word (concept) that we remind ourselves not to do.
Maybe we need to get a card-carrying Buddist or ...
The problem with your suggestion is restricted has the same sense of double meaning. Particularly in the US, that word is more associated with things that are restricted to people aged 18 and above, which doesn't make any sense on a question either.
We can sit here and play the word game for a long time to try and come up with a perfect fit that probably ...
The following is live incorporating copy from both answers.
How to Tag
A tag is a keyword or label that categorizes your question with other,
similar questions. Choose one or more (up to 5) tags that will help
answerers to find and interpret your question.
complete the sentence: my question is about...
use tags that describe things or ...
Please review Replace text in website with Chrome content script extension to create an extension that replaces every instance of "I hate hats" to a phrase of your choice, such as, "Don't show hats - it's not you, it's me, maybe we can just be friends. Friends that never, ever see each other."
“Unintelligible” is not the right wording for “very low quality”. A post can be perfectly comprehensible, but still very low quality. A post that doesn't actually say anything — a repost of an existing answer, “I like turtles”, “http://example.com/whatever” are very low quality but not unintelligible.
The right name for this flag is “delete”.
I actually understood exactly what it meant from the beginning (It wouldn't make sense for the question to have +5 or more, What are you getting the badge for? Targeting a specific question, or for giving a great answer?)
However, if you got confused, there's no reason why others wouldn't. So I propose the following:
Got a score of 5 or more on an answer ...
That bit was added because folks were interpreting it extremely broadly, using it on straightforward questions that didn't require anything in the way of additional explanations:
See, the intent here was to handle the sorts of "here's my spec, please write code for me" questions that were already being closed - not expand closure to damn thousands of ...