Timeline for Should we add "lmgtfy" to the blacklist?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 26, 2018 at 7:43 | history | edited | ChrisF | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
site name change
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:04 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://superuser.com/ with https://superuser.com/
|
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 9:16 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackoverflow.com/ with https://meta.stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Dec 15, 2012 at 12:49 | history | edited | ChrisF | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
better search term.
|
| Dec 15, 2012 at 12:47 | comment | added | ChrisF | @Sathya - how come my search didn't find them? Because I was using the wrong search term. | |
| Dec 15, 2012 at 12:40 | comment | added | Sathyajith Bhat Mod | there are actually 20 posts containing lmgtfy in URL | |
| Dec 15, 2012 at 11:54 | history | edited | ChrisF | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
more info
|
| Dec 15, 2012 at 11:43 | history | edited | ChrisF | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
bump
|
| Oct 1, 2012 at 8:15 | history | edited | ChrisF | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Now a feature request
|
| Oct 1, 2012 at 8:13 | history | edited | Sathyajith BhatMod |
edited tags
|
|
| Oct 1, 2012 at 7:40 | answer | added | HaydnWVN | timeline score: 0 | |
| Oct 1, 2012 at 6:54 | comment | added | Martin Schröder | No. See meta.stackexchange.com/a/15659/168273 | |
| Sep 30, 2012 at 19:32 | comment | added | Mr. Boy | @MrLister that in itself suggests another problem that needs addressing :) Anyway to the original question, yes absolutely. | |
| Sep 29, 2012 at 13:37 | comment | added | Mr Lister | @ChrisF Sorry, but I'm a bit weary of posting feature suggestions on MSO. If not everybody agrees, those things tend to get downvoted rather heavily, and I'd lose a lot of rep, not to mention the increased risk of getting banned. | |
| Sep 29, 2012 at 13:33 | comment | added | ChrisF | @MrLister - that would be a suggestion for MSO I think. | |
| Sep 29, 2012 at 13:28 | comment | added | Mr Lister | @ChrisF If you say so, but can't they put things like that into the blacklist by default? I mean, run some kind of script when a new site is created, that inserts certain values into certain database fields? | |
| Sep 29, 2012 at 11:28 | answer | added | Zurechtweiser | timeline score: 8 | |
| Sep 28, 2012 at 23:54 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackSuper_User/status/251832202063650816 | ||
| Sep 27, 2012 at 14:36 | answer | added | Oliver SalzburgMod | timeline score: 14 | |
| Sep 27, 2012 at 10:54 | comment | added | ChrisF | @slhck - there's no provision for network wide bans at the moment - meta.stackexchange.com/a/77422/59303 | |
| Sep 27, 2012 at 10:53 | comment | added | slhck Mod | I don't know why they didn't apply this to all sites, but yes please. | |
| Sep 27, 2012 at 10:46 | history | asked | ChrisF | CC BY-SA 3.0 |