« first day (2953 days earlier)      last day (1383 days later) » 

12:00 AM
This edit would not be an improvement even if it didn't misreport information from comments.
 
12:27 AM
The post author approved it. I re-edited to keep it as faithful as possible without falsely attributing claims to someone who did not make them.
 
 
1 hour later…
1:38 AM
Related to the above, I think this edit is good. See comments. I've approved it; it needs at least one more review.
Potentially more detail could be added later (though, relating to what I alluded to above regarding the earlier edit, I'm inclined to think that this is the first version that doesn't have too much detail, for what is a side point in the answer) but I think this edit is an improvement and that it addresses the various, potentially conflicting concerns that have been expressed so far, including by the editor by me.
 
2:19 AM
 
 
2 hours later…
 
1 hour later…
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in answer, blacklisted user (157): Gameplay screen recorder for Ubuntu? by billydaisy on askubuntu.com
 
 
2 hours later…
[ Natty | Sentinel ] Link to Post Low Length; No Code Block; Low Rep; Unregistered User; 2.5;
 
8:26 AM
 
8:45 AM
 
 
2 hours later…
10:29 AM
dupes: 1 2 3 4 5
 
11:12 AM
I mistakenly rejected this edit. It's a good edit.
 
11:28 AM
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Pattern-matching website in answer (78): USB headset microphone is not detected at all in Ubuntu 20. HyperX Cloud Flight S by Aplleroar on askubuntu.com
 
11:42 AM
@Natty tp
@Natty fp
@Natty fp That's just a wrong answer. (Though it was rightly deleted, since its author strongly appeared to want to retract it, considering their comment that was posted as a separate answer.)
 
Invalidated the previous feedback on askubuntu.com/a/1262298
 
@Natty tp
@user3140225 I don't think that edit is an improvement. Maybe some of the information is taken from the OP's comment but it's unclear where some of it comes from. For example, what does "the option of live iso" mean?
I've done "Reject and Edit" and added the information the OP provided in a comment.
not a dupe of the proposed target
 
12:08 PM
@EliahKagan When I reviewed it I was fast to reject it as deviating from the original post, influenced by a previous suggestion I reviewed, and then saw that it incorporated the OP's comment. So in order to correct my first decision I posted it here, without paying attention to all the details. You were right to reject and edit it. Thank you.
 
No problem.
 
it's been a while since I didn't come here, but can someone please help me to fix that [edit][askubuntu.com/a/1160286/829702]? It's an old one, and someone pointed a mistake (but I tried to fix it without seeing that I wasn't connected)
 
12:24 PM
@damadam I've approved the new edit. It's been applied.
 
thanks @EliahKagan
 
Also, welcome back! :)
 
1:23 PM
 
 
1 hour later…
2:26 PM
OT How to run a Windows .exe program from Hiren's boot CD
 
3:13 PM
no longer needed, it rarely if ever makes sense to post such comments on questions - OPs are notified when any answer is posted, and it is not helpful to request accepts except when an OP has actually said an answer worked but not accepted it
 
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Pattern-matching website in answer (78): How to access blocked sites? by john on askubuntu.com
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Link at end of answer, pattern-matching website in answer (138): How to access blocked sites? by Saima Naz on askubuntu.com
 
3:33 PM
unfriendly or unkind - This is unfair and somewhat hostile, and it does not appear to really be in good faith. I considered replying, but decided against it, since the one thing that is actually clear from the question is that the OP is not asking for a solution to that problem.
 
sheesh
@SmokeDetector should something be done with these two?
 
I don't know. They might not be spam. They might be useful. I'm reluctant to flag them.
 
yeah... this kind of question tends to attract such tricky hmm is it spam? answers
 
5:26 PM
 
[ Natty | Sentinel ] Link to Post Low Length; Low Rep; 1.5;
 
@Natty tp
 
@Natty fp
 
5:41 PM
Seems OP is affiliated to the project.
 
5:56 PM
OT-Debian It seems that it was posted by the same person who posted this question (See username in the screenshot)
 
@Kulfy I've added a comment, in addition to yours, to link to the relevant policies. I don't want to red-flag that post, but should it be reported to Smoke Detector? I would give tp feedback to Smoke Detector if I saw a report for it.
 
I'm reluctant to flag or report it as of now since OP seems to have some positive contributions as well. They posted exactly same answer to another question. I'd wait for their reply/action.
And thanks for the comment.
 
@Kulfy Unlike red-flagging the post, I don't think reporting it to Smokey would hurt the user... but I'm not sure what the best practice is when considering whether or not to report a post that one has already decided one is not going to red-flag. I'll hold off as well, at least for now.
@Kulfy No problem! Btw, I derived that comment from this comment text. If you wish, you can also use that text for such purposes.
 
6:14 PM
@EliahKagan Thanks. I think I should add that to the script I use for auto comments.
@EliahKagan I usually tend to hold off red-flags for such posts. But that's just me
 
6:37 PM
seems no-repro. OP installed Xubuntu and it doesn't have issues.
 
@EliahKagan it's so obviously their own work that I wonder if we shouldn't just edit it to say so... also the page gives installation instructions for Ubuntu (they've made a PPA) which could be added
There are spam flags
Will check after sleep!
 
@Kulfy Are you sure they reinstalled? I thought they were saying they installed the xubuntu-desktop metapackage and that this fixed it.
 
Ah. I missed -desktop.
I don't think it's Kubuntu anymore.
@Zanna It was deleted as spam. (cc @EliahKagan)
 
@Zanna I think such an edit would be acceptable. But I think it's usually better to let people edit it in themselves. If they do, it's usually not spam, and it demonstrates their good intent. If they don't, the post still does not always have to be removed (and could even have disclosure edited in by someone else), but the knowledge that they did not edit it in is relevant if they make more posts promoting things with which they're affiliated.
@Kulfy Apparently the spam deletion was triggered by moderator action, since the post has zero upvotes and two downvotes, and it takes six non-moderator spam flags to delete a post as spam, and each spam flag confers an automatic downvote that is only cleared if the flag is declined or disputed.
 
It seems OP was penalised since they are back to 1 point even after having 1 upvote on another post.
@EliahKagan Yeah. seems so
 
6:46 PM
@Kulfy Yeah, when a post is deleted as spam or as rude/abusive, this deducts 100 reputation from the post owner (or less, if they have less). The deduction is reversed and the user's rep automatically recalculated if the red flags are later disputed. (I think unlike most flag types, spam flags marked helpful can later be disputed, which I believe happens when a moderator unlocks and undeletes a post that was deleted with red flags.)
Unfortunately the post author cannot edit in disclosure, because red-flag deletion causes the Community bot not only to delete a post but also to lock it.
 
@EliahKagan Regarding reversal of points, this post was originally deleted as spam but later on I flagged for mod attention explaining why it should be undeleted. The undeletion didn't return 10rep points, I believe.
May be there's something else I'm missing.
 
@Kulfy That's very strange and seems like a bug.
But are you sure?
It's their only post, and they have about as much rep as the post score times 10, and their profile shows the rep from it.
 
(18*10)+1 but the post has 19 upvotes
 
Hmm.
 
Their another post was deleted as spam. Maybe they got penalised after this one's deletion.
 
@Kulfy So you're saying, it may have had a few upvotes, been red-flag deleted causing them to lose less than 100 rep since they had less, then undeleted?
@Natty tp
@Kulfy Undisclosed affiliation, I presume?
 
@EliahKagan When it was deleted it had 1 upvote.
@EliahKagan Yes they never responded or took action on the answer I flagged for mod attention. It is a good answer IMHO. Should the link be removed?
@Natty tp
 
@Kulfy I've commented to request clarification.
@Kulfy Could you remove it? Or would a mod have to unlock the post?
 
I am talking about this answer which is currently unlocked.
 
Oh.
Is there a reason to remove the link?
Did the post author write the article?
Their other post, which remains deleted as spam, links to that domain, but the article author's name is similar to the username. I thought you were asking about that one.
 
7:00 PM
I'm not sure. Their their one of the author has similar name.
The answer about which we're talking about right now was written by H2S Media.
I assume "Raj" does have privileges to use that name.
(unrelated) Do we consider such questions as no-repro?
 
7:22 PM
@Kulfy I'm not sure. Maybe it can be closed as a duplicate of some question about that error message that has a more informative answer?
 
8:12 PM
^^ Had the hunch since the very beginning, then this comment by the OP confirmed it's an XY problem. Still they didn't mention the actual problem or goal even after being asked (vaguely mentions "get to the setting to look at the keyboard options").
 
 
1 hour later…
9:54 PM
@Natty tp
 
10:13 PM
@Natty tp
What was wrong with this edit? @Ravexina
^^ My @ is mainly in case there is also something wrong my recent edit, which (among other things) applies the changes that were made in that edit suggestion, other than those you applied in your similar edit. There's no need to reply unless you wish to.
@Kulfy I've looked at it again and I think it's no repro. It's fundamentally about behavior that different between a script and interactive commands... but it turned out that there was no difference because the OP was not running the commands they thought they were running, and there doesn't seem to be much of a conceptual issue behind the confusion. Even if it were a typo, that would be an opportunity to say what the syntax should be.
Still, if we have something else for it, I think it may be better to close it as a duplicate.
 

« first day (2953 days earlier)      last day (1383 days later) »