Timeline for Should I approve edits that only have substantial additions?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Post Revisions
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 16, 2018 at 20:19 | vote | accept | user151841 | ||
| May 23, 2017 at 12:38 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Sep 28, 2015 at 13:10 | comment | added | user151841 | @BogdanAlexandru That's not what I mean. I'm not asking if the only types of edits I should approve are those with additions. I'm asking if I should approve edits that only have substantial additions, and nothing else. Which means that the editor didn't change the original text, but only made a (relatively large) addition. | |
| Sep 28, 2015 at 12:03 | comment | added | Bogdan Alexandru | Please edit the title of this post as it does not make any sense. You probably mean "Should I approve only edits that have substantial additions?". | |
| Sep 27, 2015 at 19:18 | answer | added | einpoklum | timeline score: -2 | |
| Sep 27, 2015 at 7:47 | answer | added | PM 2Ring | timeline score: 3 | |
| Sep 25, 2015 at 13:54 | answer | added | ChrisFMod | timeline score: 20 | |
| Sep 25, 2015 at 13:52 | comment | added | codeMagic | Besides what @DavidPostill said, "In most of these cases, I'm not knowledgeable enough to judge" if you are unsure then just skip and work on the next one | |
| Sep 25, 2015 at 13:48 | comment | added | DavidPostill | "Reject" as "attempt to reply" - "This edit was intended to address the author of the post and makes no sense as an edit. It should have been written as a comment or an answer." | |
| Sep 25, 2015 at 13:30 | history | asked | user151841 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |