Timeline for Was this "roll-back edit" flag declined correctly?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:18 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://superuser.com/ with https://superuser.com/
|
|
| Mar 15, 2016 at 3:07 | comment | added | fixer1234 | In this case, look at it the other way around. The original question was off-topic and was subject to closure. The reason given for the edit was a poor choice of words. The edit was to turn it into an on-topic question. It managed to preserve the essence of the question. At the time of the original post, a lot of stuff slipped through that the site has gotten more rigorous about as time progressed. The authors of the answers should have recognized that the question was off-topic, and answered at their own risk. It was one of those answerers who recognized the problem and fixed it. | |
| Mar 13, 2016 at 20:56 | comment | added | Psycogeek | It has been that way for years, even if it was repainting the target after shooting the arrow, I might decline just based on it being an archive at this point? Any changes to something that old (it is that old?) should be more like updating answers, fixing links, or posting a new correct updated answer. | |
| Mar 13, 2016 at 20:25 | answer | added | Ben N | timeline score: 2 | |
| Mar 13, 2016 at 19:40 | history | asked | janot | CC BY-SA 3.0 |