Timeline for Terminology issue of computer related questions
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:32 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:18 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://superuser.com/ with https://superuser.com/
|
|
| Apr 23, 2014 at 13:35 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration
|
|
| Apr 23, 2014 at 9:11 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Migration of MSO links to MSE links
|
|
| Jul 22, 2010 at 18:01 | history | migrated | from meta.stackexchange.com (revisions) | ||
| Mar 16, 2010 at 21:16 | comment | added | ldigas | @Jeff - thank you! It will ease things in the future, for certain. | |
| Mar 16, 2010 at 9:12 | comment | added | Gnoupi | @Jeff - thank you, that will really make such situations easier. | |
| Mar 16, 2010 at 8:52 | comment | added | Jeff Atwood | excellent suggestion, not sure why we didn't think of this sooner.. implemented! | |
| Mar 3, 2010 at 16:13 | comment | added | Cawas | +1 vote for adding the "FAQ" link, and also adding in the FAQ a link to why super user is so restricted. | |
| Feb 16, 2010 at 13:26 | comment | added | ldigas | i personally prefer the longer variant ... "offtopic", "OT" brings some bad memories/connotations from days of usenet police :) and a little verbosity is not that bad nowadays, in the time of acronyms and illiteracy | |
| Feb 16, 2010 at 8:50 | comment | added | Gnoupi | @fretje - true, that would work. Fact that it is not in the scope of SU is redundant, because stated in the description. Though "off-topic" can be a bit vague, not fully sure yet. | |
| Feb 16, 2010 at 8:31 | comment | added | fretje | why not "closed as off-topic"? | |
| Feb 16, 2010 at 8:25 | comment | added | Gnoupi | @~quack (even though it won't notify) - Great edit, much lighter this way, thank you. The "are expected" is from the original "not computer related" close description. "should" would be shorter, but indeed less strong. I think we're good as it is right now. | |
| Feb 15, 2010 at 18:04 | comment | added | quack quixote | in the interest of brevity i'd also like to replace "are expected to" with "should" ...but it's really not as strong. overall i think this is a good proposed change. | |
| Feb 15, 2010 at 17:11 | comment | added | ldigas | Comment on edit: that looks good ! Btw, interesting choice of close moderator :))) | |
| Feb 15, 2010 at 17:09 | comment | added | ldigas | None taken. I don't see why it couldn't be called just that for a start, but really, I don't care. Call it whatever you want, just as long as it is not what it's called now. In any case, just wanted to point it out ... the rest is up to the whoever changes that stuff. | |
| Feb 15, 2010 at 16:58 | history | answered | Gnoupi | CC BY-SA 2.5 |