@Sathya Shit, sorry! I just read a post saying I should do edits in batches of 5-10. Completely didn't realize it would flood the homepage with edits.

woof

Its a rule of thumb. Just be prepared for someone to complain on meta ;)

hah, great.

@Insane lol next time spread it out :) I'm approving your edits spread out but others might just mash them through...

@Sathya Yup, will do. I noticed that by the way.

cheers

I've been meaning to ask, is it possible to revert to a previous edit state in a question? Someone just made an edit to their own question which is un-needed and it would be nice to just revert it?

@Insane yes, click on the edit timestamp, it brings up the revisions. Click on Rollback on the revision you want to revert to

hmm. don't see rollback. could it be I don't have enough reputation?

Yeah, I think there's a minimum repuation level for that

ah alright.

@JourneymanGeek interesting. i opened every link here above 500 rep and couldn't find the word "rollback" anywhere. maybe it's a mod tool?

I'd guess you'd need to be able to edit on your own to do a rollback?

I'll check. I never look at that any more ;p

@Insane which post is this

@Sathya Was one where the guy added *QUESTION SOLVED or something like that to the title and I was just going to roll it back if I could. I ended up just editing it and actually good thing because there was some info that should've been kept in the body.

@Insane link please :)

Trying to find it again I closed the tab, one moment.

I think you need 2k rep, which gives you full edit privs

Yeah I figured it might be either that or 10k :3

@random Hi are you there?

Any SU moderator here?

Sometimes

What's up @Hastur ?

Hi @JourneymanGeek Nothing really serious just a suggestion about a [Tag edit] (superuser.com/review/suggested-edits/449862) I did

Where is supposed to be taken a definition, if not from a free vocabulary or from a free encyclopedia? I receive a reproach "Generic descriptions such as encyclopedia articles and ad copy do not provide useful guidance". The logo was taken by the "father tag" "Ubuntu" on the same SU, the reported text is not an article but a definition, common knowledge of internet (>200 times on google research with double quotes).

You paraphrase it

Not copy exactly as it is

It's possible to copy a definition if the origin is referred. For example a scientific definition (it is not this case) cannot be paraphrased without making it corrupted.

How much of that is relevant even? You don't need to include a history or marketing copy, or even an image. A definition is not a useful tag wiki. How best to use the tag would be

@random If you don't like the logo GO to the tag ubuntu of SU and take out from there!

I didn't add the logo, I take the same template of the existing "father" tag and the same image and link.

Why did you assert that a definition it is not a useful part of a tag wiki? Do we have to suppose that all the people have to know all the terms? If so why a tag wiki? It will be enough a tag without wiki

First reason it was rejected because it was directly copying text word-for-word from another source. The rest are notes about how to make the tag wiki better. Yes, most tags do not need an explanation if they just drop in definitions. If there is confusion or there are better tags that might be useful, or other tags of related interest, that kind of information is useful in a tag wiki

I agree "How best to use the tag would be"... that for me include a definition about what are we speaking about.

There where 3 related tags.

Yes, but that doesn't stop the proposed edit being copied text from another source

What do you mean?

Most of the edit was a copy and paste from text elsewhere

( There where 6 references )

not from a unique source... what did you expect that we will write each sentence never repeating part of sentence just said elsewhere?

When you explore with a mobile (or tablet) and a browser a tag wiki you cannot have the frame that opens and explain what's inside...

Why does the tag wiki here need to be a copy of what's already on Wikipedia?

And to write things different from the definition that we give for our tag can create more confusion.

If you find a better source that we can put please say. You have to rely to some definition, I can agree that wikipedia it cannot be always trustful, but in that case it was taken from a manual of 12.10 or before... (in this moment I don't remember but it is not the point)

No, would leave the definition out as it is not ambiguous about what ubuntu-server is talking about. It's not about finding a better source, it's about relevance to tag usage

You speak from your experience. A newbie didn't know. A simple windows user too. A definition is needed to understand.

A new user would not see ubuntu-server and use that for their Ubuntu desktop question

Why not? (sorry for delay). A new user has to connect to his computer via ssh. He reads that is needed to install openssh-server "I need a server" , I run Ubuntu --- > Ubuntu server. TAG

And that example would be the kind of explanation the tag wiki would do well to have. Not just saying what standard text already says, but guidance on when and why to use the tag

@Hastur: Where possible, you want to focus on providing guidance on how to use the tag in the excerpt. More details can be provided in the full tag wiki.

> The server editions that use the same APT repositories as the Ubuntu Desktop Edition. Ubuntu is a free open source operating system based on the Debian GNU/Linux distribution. Consider using even askubuntu.com to ask questions about it.

I think this might be a bit too verbose.

I've posted a simplified version of the tag wiki excerpt, and have added in a tag wiki expanding upon the original description.

> An edition of Ubuntu designed for use on servers, with a text-mode environment and server applications in place of a GUI. You may want to consider asking on askubuntu.com.

My approach is to make the tag wiki simple, yet clear, avoiding unnecessary text while not compromising readability.

The text "Ubuntu is a free open source operating system based on the Debian GNU/Linux distribution." is not necessary and is covered by the main ubuntu tag wiki.

I've also simplified the tag wiki for ubuntu. It was originally:

> Ubuntu is a free open source operating system based on the Debian GNU/Linux distribution. Consider using AskUbuntu.com to ask questions about it.

It is now:

> A free, open-source operating system based on Debian GNU/Linux. You may want to consider asking on askubuntu.com.

Conveys the same information and is just as easy to read, but does so with fewer words.

(As a note: random likes to strip out even words like "a" or "for questions about", but it's my belief that doing so compromises readability and is not worth making the excerpt slightly shorter.)

Simplified the ubuntu-server except further:

> An edition of Ubuntu which provides server applications and a text-mode environment in place of a GUI. You may want to consider asking on askubuntu.com.

More informative, more relevant to users, less wordy.

@JourneymanGeek hey you around?

Yeah

I just woke up

oh hah. well i just had a question about my quest for meta.superuser.com/questions/10838/…

basically if a tag synonym is created, should we still edit modern-ui questions to windows-store-app?

Not really, no

alright just curious. because the more i think about it the term itself "modern-ui" is more descriptive of a design theme not an app..

MS has been notoriously inconsistant about that

It used to be called metro

then they got sued.

Modern UI was a placeholder.

Windows Store App is a lamer name than a legless cat IMO.