Timeline for Are requests for arbitrary lines from novels on-topic?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 15, 2020 at 7:39 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:38 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://english.stackexchange.com/ with https://english.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:32 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Aug 23, 2016 at 14:30 | history | edited | Lawrence | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 7 characters in body
|
| Aug 23, 2016 at 7:16 | comment | added | Yoichi Oishi Mod | That claim was settle down by reopening of the question. Don't keep singing the same song. This is the end of our discussion. I enjoyed our discourse, and talked with FumbleFingers, Josh61, tchrist, Mari-Lou, Deadrat, all my old friend after a long while, and received a lot of good advice from them. However, I no longer have time to play with this subject, which was settled down by Reopen votes. I won't visit this corner again. Take care. | |
| Aug 23, 2016 at 7:10 | comment | added | curiousdannii | @YoichiOishi I never called your question stupid, so please don't insinuate that I did. All I said was that it doesn't fit into the on-topic definition of this site. | |
| Aug 23, 2016 at 7:08 | comment | added | Yoichi Oishi Mod | Continued. There are many users from different corners of the world. You may be one of them and us. Don't be exclusive and xenophobic in defending your point. With that said, I'm willing to cancel the previous remarks. . | |
| Aug 23, 2016 at 7:06 | comment | added | Yoichi Oishi Mod | @curiousdanni. If you've read the above my comment, then it's done. I just wanted to tell you each people has each idea, interpretation, and theory. It's wrong to snub other's question, opinion, and idea under the name of "off-topic." If it is understood by you, I don't mind to retract the above comment. Don't push on your principle to others. Be flexible, broad-minded, not nit-picky, keep the door of EL&U wide open to questions even if it seems "off-topic" and "stupid," that is what I would like to remind you as "a mod" if you think I am. | |
| Aug 23, 2016 at 6:42 | comment | added | curiousdannii | @YoichiOishi These kind of comments are completely unacceptable coming from anyone, but especially from a mod. | |
| Aug 23, 2016 at 5:06 | comment | added | curiousdannii | What all this shows is that the question is pretty vague too. I took it as strictly a what's-the-quote question, not an etymology or idiom request question. If either of those were desired it could be much more clearly asked. | |
| Aug 22, 2016 at 17:41 | history | edited | Lawrence | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 19 characters in body
|
| Aug 22, 2016 at 17:12 | comment | added | Lawrence | @SvenYargs I have deleted point 3d and replaced it with a stub. I'd delete it altogether, but that would leave your comment referencing the wrong point. Thank you pointing out the inaccuracy. | |
| Aug 22, 2016 at 17:10 | history | edited | Lawrence | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Removed point 3d.
|
| Aug 22, 2016 at 17:06 | comment | added | Lawrence | @SvenYargs You're welcome. Your point is well-made, and I stand corrected. "Research" is broadly defined at SE and ELU, and simply requires the OP to show what they've found themselves. Looking at the launch of the lack of research reason for voting to close, it is apparent that it's the successor to gen ref, with a broader scope. For this summary, point 3(d) is not critical and can be ignored. In relation to the question at hand, it is also evident that research has been shown by the OP; it wouldn't have been a valid close-reason. | |
| Aug 22, 2016 at 16:45 | comment | added | Sven Yargs | Thanks for this summary. To me, the most surprising outline point is 3(d): "Research refers primarily to checking the ELU database for prior Q&A on the topic." Taken literally, wouldn't this reduce the "closed for lack of research" to something like "closed because the poster failed to find obvious duplicate questions in the ELU database"? I'm no big fan of the "lack of prior research" close reason; but the 3(d) interpretation seems to make it a near duplicate of the "closed as a duplicate" reason, in which case we might as well replace it with the old "closed as general reference" reason. | |
| Aug 22, 2016 at 15:21 | history | answered | Lawrence | CC BY-SA 3.0 |