« first day (1487 days earlier)   

3:39 AM
@pnuts I'm not in this room as frequently anymore :( I'm sorry I missed these
No, those are from an anonymous user, not from us. I regret that I cannot divulge any more about them, but they've piqued my curiosity as well
 
@jonsca Re VTC - As much as anything may be that I'm just not yet used to that privilege here. But there is also that I may not be certain a Q is off topic here. (You should see the shambles at Travel.SE about on/off topic!) Certainly I have often relied on you to swing by very soon and sort matters out.
My comments are meant to give OP's a chance at rewording before getting to "on hold" - because I gather (from SO) only about 20% recover from that.
 
It's not a problem. I didn't mean for it to sound accusatory, I was just curious
Yes, Travel's got some issues, that's for sure.
As long as you can smuggle your engagement ring past customs, I suppose that's the important thing.
39
Q: How do I get an engagement ring past security/customs in an airport without alerting my significant other?

andraA related post, made me wonder how you can hide a ring from a "special one" traveling with you to a place where you will propose and yet get it legally through security or customs? You don't want the surprise to be killed by a bureaucrat.

 
No, definitely not accusatory. A longish explanation (because that's me!) because I had to think about why I was not doing what is actually obvious really. Do you have a preference/ recommendation? (I don't mind either way but perhaps should not be relying on you as much as I do).
 
Stuff that's definitely web development should probably get nudged into the queue with a VtC. That way everyone can see it and hopefully it can accrue some more close votes (if I don't see it first)
I wouldn't worry too much about stepping on toes. If something really does get into the queue mistakenly, someone else can always cast a "leave open", and if we get 3 of those it will get kicked out of there anyway.
 
re TSE - I think there was more than one 'related' post. There seems a tendency there for any one question to spawn further hypothetical ones. Which I don't much like but is a bit rich when my own question gets accused of being unrealistic. (It was closed and re-opened - another was migrated to Aviation, rejected [first time I've ever seen that] re-opened and then deleted.
 
3:54 AM
Yikes. That's kind of a sucky experience.
 
There's more. I've been accused of misogyny, others of stupidity, lying etc. WA is a MUCH nicer place.
I'll give VTC here a try, at least for the most blatantly off topic.
 
Well, we always welcome you here.
 
No need to apologise re infrequent visits to chat – they are a lot less infrequent that other mods (and everyone else but Jacob!) and there is no hurry. All credit to the anonymous user, whoever s/he is need not ‘confess’ to doing a good job.
 
As long as they aren't spam edits, it's okay to accept the anonymous ones.
 
I'm learning. There seems to be no in between for anonymous. It is either spam or very good - maybe s/he is schizophrenic :-)
 
4:19 AM
The ones that seem like spam are definitely from spammers.
 
 
13 hours later…
5:12 PM
@jonsca I have no doubt [How do credit card comparison websites work? [on hold]](webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/69156/…) is off topic and believe the message "It is a question about creating/developing a web application" is the best available to you. However it is hardly accurate and for me that jars with the general SE quality.
I wonder whether WA mods (you!) might be allowed a more general option such as “It is not a topic covered on this site. See “on-topic” for details.”? (But no big deal.)
 
@pnuts I suppose I probably should have used the custom message, but I figured that development was the OP's ultimate goal. There is a general reason that actually says that, but it disappears when we add the custom reasons.
It's related to this:
13
Q: Why doesn't the default "off topic" close reason appear when you add a custom close reason?

ChrisFI've added the following close reason to three of the four meta sites where I moderate: The problem described here can no longer be reproduced. Changes to the system or to the circumstances affecting the asker have rendered it obsolete. If you encounter a similar problem, please post a new qu...

but maybe we should add it back in.
I used my usual generic "This question appears to be off-topic because it is not about an issue that an end-user would face with an existing web application" instead.
 
 
1 hour later…
6:27 PM
@Jonsca Many thanks - clearly "well in hand". I had noticed you almost always provide at least a little more than the bare minimum so the message does not matter much when there is a helpful comment as well.
 
@pnuts Yeah, that's an unfortunate side-effect of using that close reason. I suppose it's to stop the official one from reading "This was closed because bozo" or something that someone put in.
 
 
2 hours later…
8:32 PM
@Alex With apologies for delay, does this help? webapps.stackexchange.com/a/45781/60716
 

« first day (1487 days earlier)