Tavern on the Meta

Undo

12:05 AM

@SmokeDetector delete

oops, waited too long

@SmokeDetector delete

I know I'm kinda spamming the tavern, sorry folks :(

@SmokeDetector delete

user259867

Today's timehop post is inspired by the controversy around accepted answers....

user259867

1068

A: View the change history of a file using Git versioning

For this I'd use: gitk [filename]

user259867

Should this be the top answer? Hmmm.

user259867

@SmokeDetector del

bjb568

12:36 AM

0

A: How do I make a good edit?

Edits made by users with full editing privileges (2k+ rep) are applied instantly and are generally trusted to be correct and in good faith. If you have full editing privileges, you can feel free to make larger changes to posts, add or modify technical details if what you're doing doesn't go again...

Whaj'all think?

user259867

> improved formatting is not a valid edit summary

user259867

Why?

user259867

If the post had a nonformatted code block, and someone formatted it, what should be the summary?

bjb568

Half of edits say "improved formatting".

They don't improve formatting most of the time

user259867

If their edit doesn't improve the post, then it doesn't matter what the summary says.

hichris123

12:42 AM

> Reviewers aren't judges of technical accuracy and they don't have the full context to decide on large changes, so it's a good idea to lean on the conservative side.

tchrist

When serial downvoting is reversed automatically, is the record of the person who did it wiped clean with no record kept — or is this information available to moderators or community managers if need be in case they someday go looking for a pattern of voting irregularities? I presume the latter, but I’m often wrong.

hichris123

There's some major opposition to that.

bjb568

@NormalHuman Sometimes they are valid edits.

@tchrist I think the latter.

tchrist

@bjb568 Full editing privileges are not granted until Trusted User.

bjb568

@hichris123 "Reviewers are not a judge of technical accuracy" is up there with "votes should be anonymous", "moderators are human exception handlers", and "flaggers have the burden of explaining themselves"

@tchrist I mean the editing privilege. I've heard it called "full" before, but feel free to edit CW if you have a better term.

tchrist

12:46 AM

Only Trusted Users can edit existing Tag Wikis without being subject to review or create new ones that are owned by that user rather than by Community. If they do create such, they have a binding vote on Edit Reviews of that tag wiki as though it were their own post.

Given the crap that happens on SO, this is probably a good thing.

user259867

@tchrist Votes are soft-deleted, much like posts: they are only marked "deleted:1" or some such.

tchrist

@NormalHuman I’ve noticed that, like with close-votes that are marked “deleted” once the closure action goes through. So the record is still there then; good. Thanks.

James

Morning

tchrist

I ask because I just got six serial downvotes and four serial upvotes on old unrelated posts within the space of a few short minutes. It’s odd; I wonder if the perp thinks those will cancel each other and that they will therefore not be caught.

I’m still +28 ahead, but I expect those all to evaporate upon automatic reversal.

People are strange.

Good morning, James. My sun is even now westering.

Does anybody remember Anna Lear's charming term for a serial admirer? It’s slipped my memory.

hichris123

1:07 AM

@bjb568 To some quite vocal people... no. I lean to each side, typically, but there's some people that'll fight you on that point.

Braiam

meh, I do pretty heroics edits, sometimes even invalidating answers so a question doesn't get closed (through people fights with me for that, and for closing questions too...)

bjb568

@hichris123 meh, they haven't done enough edit queue work

Santa Claus

!!/lick

Transcript for