SFF community cleanup room

Rename to The Trash Compacter?

Why is SE so SO centred?

You are entitled to your opinion, as am I; and having them at variance is resolved by the democratic systems of this site.

For anyone who is wondering what on Mars this SmokeDetector stuff is, please visit Charcoal-SE.org and the Charcoal HQ chat room.

I don't see how this is improving the site, if anything it's producing clutter. As much as I like re-open votes, I think you should get some community consensus for this.

Online transcriber: onlineocr.net

data.SE query to find images that need alt text

If you're unsure of the answer, may I remind you that there always is a [skip] button. :-)

I... don't think it would be worth editing just for that. I don't think it matters too much.

@Edlothiad delete all the joke answers

The "policy" doesn't really accord with the system-wide criteria for judging duplicates. I don't believe in reopening obvious duplicates; especially when the askers are not likely to reappear and confirm the duplicate status, it degrades the quality of the site as a database of answered and cross-linked questions.

it's silly isn't a reason to close.

@Aegon If anything, I think it's pro-trans, rather than anti-trans.

What I do not like about having a main site feed in this room, is that quick single line comments such as "NaA: {link to post}" get lost in the barrage of one-boxes. Do we really want a main feed here?

@Aegon The verb "do" is an auxiliary verb, which appears when the simple past or present tense is put into interrogative form. E.g. "He has" -> "Does he have?" or "They went" -> "Did they go?" As an auxiliary verb, it always goes together with the infinitive form of the main verb. "Does it has" is NEVER correct.

Recent answers.

Posts with more than 10 comments.

The whole point of many discussions is that we should not be using deletion as a proxy for disagreement with an answer’s veracity. We have downvotes for that.

Spam Compactor?

I'll be skipping that debate.

@Edlothiad What do you mean by "outside flag threshold"?

I'm not sure why "outsider flag threshold" wouldn't be constructive. The threshold for flags set by third party users outside of this site. Seems pretty factual to me.

*sigh* I'm not going to get into this argument.

@Abcd Hmm. That's difficult without knowing anything about what you like ;-)

@Randal'Thor why don't you join Math.SE too ;-) ?

Why doesnt SE do something for other networks too?

@Mithrandir I feel justified in using a users history to determine the innocence of the post itself.

Vote for the post, not the person.

I did my first First Posts review in July '15. I'm not exactly new to this. I reviewed it, decided that it was worth an upvote, and did so. I decided it was not worth editing, so I didn't. It didn't have to be flagged. It didn't need a close vote. I didn't feel a comment was necessary. So... with all due respect, I will request that you work on the assumption that I know what I'm doing.

And what was wrong with that review? Sure, it may help to leave a comment asking for more details, but I bet there's already enough info for the question to be answerable.

@Edlothiad "taking reviews"? You don't own the review queues.

Crazy about flags, crazy about reviews ... don't you have anything more fulfilling to worry about?

The edit was correcting spelling and fixing italicisation of a title.

@Edlothiad Why did you reject this edit?

Anyway, just wanted to let you know that edits and rollbacks can invalidate existing red flags on a post, so I'd be very cautious about editing r/a or spam posts.

What was the point of the edit?

@Edlothiad barely makes sense on this question

Wait that doesn't look right, maybe it was another answer :thinking_face: I thought it was this one, one second

And considering what happened with scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/310/… I don't think that you can say we leave old, highly voted joke answers

@Mithrandir ?

I'm not entirely sure when that policy was introduced, so I'm not sure if that'd be possible

And to be perfectly honest, I'm getting kind of tired of you complaining when I try to uphold the site policies. Just talking in comments or chat won't change anything. If you seriously want to change the policy, please raise it on meta. Until you do that, I'd appreciate if you don't go after me like that when I leave a comment or VTC/VTRO based on existing site policy.

That's not very constructive.

The only way this would get a canon answer would be if JKR got drunk (again) someone asked her on twitter and she came up with some drunken idea (again)

Silly speculative questions are on topic, even though the answer will often be "we don't know, there's no canon material to even start speculating on".

Somehow it looked like NaA, and my first instinct was to convert it to a comment, but it actually does answer the question almost as well as the accepted answer.

(That's because I don't actually know all those rules, I just go with what feels right from my experience with reading :P)

The subject being singular (or a collective entity) instead of plural means that it's "Does Barrowland have" rather than "Do Barrowland have", but it's NEVER "Does [noun] has", regardless of the noun or its plurality.

Also, these revisions are getting a bit stupid.