@FEichinger ok, so you're saying that something is interesting.

@jrg Uh ... huh?

I just wanted to get your input on that stuff up there, what with you being an exception handler and all that.

hm, ok.

looking

And I figured, since Lucio and I don't fully agree, getting an exception handler to look into it might be a good idea.

so what exactly is the problem, i'm not understanding.

The launchpad bug report no longer exists, rendering the answer from "just a link" to "pretty much no content".

hm.

The other link had a partial answer in it, that could be edited into the answer, to improve it, perhaps.

Buuut, that ubuntuforums thread also ends in a link to another AU question.

yeah, ok

Which, thus, may or may not be a dupe of that question.

But both are "answered" for the system, and the ubuntu version is no longer supported, soooo ...

Kind of a "not really worth the hassle" on my end, although I do see where it needs some improvements.

what, close as TL and delete answer?

that's a lot of reputation just to blow away on a whim.

:\

Which is why I'd say "Just leave it be."

Lucio was arguing to mark it as dupe or similar.

There's no benefit in editing the link-only + broken-link answer. It would push the Q up to the front page, it wouldn't add anything as we don't even know what the broken link contributed, and we can't really make a proper post out of it. And merging/dupe-marking either of the two Qs to the other seems like a waste of two "answered" Qs that, essentially, are obsolete (apparently it was a bug).

If i'm not mistaken, questions/answers over a certain age and with more than 3 upvotes don't have their rep lost on deletion.

I need to check that up though

@JourneymanGeek depends.

but yes, generally if it's 30+ days and +3 it's ok

@EliahKagan poke me when ur around

@BrunoPereira Hi.

@EliahKagan about this

enlighten me please, maybe I am not seeing it

@BrunoPereira It seems to me like an advertisement for a service, posted twice. (Although I'm not sure, looking at it now, that there was any profit motive, which is relevant.) Ordinarily I'd think of it just like any answer posted on more than one question, but it seemed like an attempt to court the Ask Ubuntu community to use a particular service. Looking at it now, I'm not sure I was right, and as I said in the flag, I don't think any action should be taken against the author.

I would probably not have thought to flag it if it had only been posted once.

@EliahKagan ok man, <3

@BrunoPereira Certainly the user contributes in a quite positive way to the community and should not be considered a spammer in general. In any case, I feel pretty good about it whether or not you choose to action the flags, and (though it seems they're marked helpful right now) whether or not you consider them helpful.

I would also of course be open to guidelines about flagging differently (though I doubt a situation quite like that will arise frequently).

@EliahKagan My first thought was also "burn it!", was just wondering if there was anything extra that I did not see.

@BrunoPereira If you have a minute I actually have an unrelated question for you.

@EliahKagan shoot

Do/should we have a canonical-ish meta question about when a question should be CW and how to get a question CW'd. If so, it seems to me this should be undeleted (if the author is cool with that, anyway) and duped to it.

If not, it seems to me we should make one (i could write it but it might need a bit of refinement from a moderator) and dupe that to it ...or generalize that and dupe it to it. Either way, it seems to me that there will just be more meta questions like that from time to time, if that's deleted without addressing publicly the issue of when/how to CW a question.

Actually, I think it's more important that we have a meta question for this, than that that particular question be undeleted (which is not really very important at all). However, that could come up from searching and lead people to the canonical resource. Really, it's the possibly not yet existing canonical meta question for that, that I wanted your views on.

@EliahKagan Do we really need that? Ask yourself: CWs are "tools" that allow better usage of the site, its the site responding to a situation, a reaction. Do we as a community really need to ask the moderators to turn a normal post in to a CW, or should we let the site act on what is really happening? If so, do we really need to discuss such trivialities and make them "rules"(?)?

But I want it seems to be very popular and redundant these days...

@BrunoPereira That post shouldn't be CW. Are you saying users should never flag their questions to make them CW? For example, I think it would definitely have been okay for this question not to be CW'd. Was I wrong to ask for that there?

I don't think a meta question explaining something that some people are confused about necessarily needs to lay down rigid rules. (But I'm also not asserting we necessarily should have this.) From searching MSO, it seems flagging questions to ask for CW is approved of. If the attitude here is different, our meta seems like the place to clarify that.

@EliahKagan Look, if you did a mistake and accidentally pressed the wrong guizmos on the site we will fix it for you, if you want posts to be made of or cleared off CW we will do it for you if you flag it, other than that why should we even worry about if things are made CW or not? Why is it relevant to be "canonically" discussed? Do we need to make everything a rule?

A better source for that might be this answer. "If you think something should be community wiki then flag it for mod attention with a comment to that effect. Simple."

@EliahKagan Love it, that should be enough, nothing else. Do we need to transform that to a canonical post? Really? Is that not obvious?

@BrunoPereira No, I agree, it should not. Really, the only things that would go into such a meta question are: "Posts don't generally have to be CW." and "If you want your post CW, you can flag for it" (with maybe a link to MSO if our attitude is the same).

@EliahKagan Maybe I was harsh on the comment I made on that deleted post, hope you understand the reason I did it. Feel free to wonder around the site and do as you please, even if it is to create a "Should (...) CW?" post, I would not mind, but just seems too much redundancy sometimes.

@BrunoPereira When someone posts on meta to ask for a question to be CW'd, is there reason to do anything besides link them to that MSO post? That's really all I'm saying. If linking to that MSO post is sufficient, a meta Q&A that excerpts from and links to it would be an easy way to dupe new questions.

@BrunoPereira I didn't see that as harsh. (I'm glad you're concerned about that kind of thing but I suspect you have not offended anybody here.) Rather, I thought it would've been easier for you, vasa1, and anybody else to have a simple meta post that it could've been duped to.

In spite of the big amount of text I've typed here, this is not really a big issue for me. It just occurred to me that a question for duping might be handy, and as we were already talking, I figured I'd bring it up.

@EliahKagan As you please, I am not stopping users from using the site, just telling them when its enough to discuss things simply(er)...

Lets VTR this:

VTR:

@Seth: Done

@Aditya Thanks

askubuntu.com/a/250260/114818 vtr

askubuntu.com/a/250255/114818 vtr

@Aditya done

@Seth Thanks

@Seth BTW, are you planning to run for elections :)

Not planning on it.

@Seth No problem... I thought you said somewhere that you were thinking about it

@Aditya Yeah, I was.

and I would have, but couldn't work it out on this end ;)

@Seth No problem... we would vote for you in 2014 Elections :)

All the support I've gotten is encouraging :)

After read this post I think that this answer need to be VTR. Is that correct or it should be closed as too localized?

It has an answer, the answer apparently helped the user - VTR + remind user of accepting, in case they ever come back.