« first day (3015 days earlier)      last day (34 days later) » 

1:56 AM
OT KDE Neon
OT Manjaro
 
 
3 hours later…
4:45 AM
OT 19.10
 
 
2 hours later…
 
1 hour later…
8:58 AM
Autoflagging disabled until restart
 
 
2 hours later…
 
2 hours later…
3:06 PM
OT Elementary OS
OT Pop!_OS
 
 
2 hours later…
4:38 PM
@Natty fp
@Natty fp (see second paragraph)
@Natty tp
@Natty tp
@Natty tp
@Natty tp
@Natty tp
@Natty tp
@Natty tp
@Natty tp
@Natty tp
@Natty tp
@Natty tp
@Natty tp They should've been advised to post a new question, not to post a comment.
@Natty fp (sorry, I accidentally said tp here before)
 
Invalidated the previous feedback on askubuntu.com/a/1277939
 
@Natty tp
@Natty tp
@Natty Not sure. Maybe VLQ. It seems like an attempt to answer.
@Natty tp
@Natty tp
@Natty tp
@Natty tp
@Natty fp
@Natty tp
@Natty tp
@Natty tp Borderline, but this workaround is given in the question.
@Natty fp The version Natty saw was barely an answer, but it was one.
 
[ Natty | Sentinel ] Link to Post Low Length; Possible Link Only; No Code Block; Low Rep; Unregistered User; 5.0;
 
4:52 PM
@Natty tp
@Natty tp
^^ I suggest it be converted to a comment.
 
[ Natty | Sentinel ] Link to Post Ends with ?; Low Length; Possible Link Only; No Code Block; Low Rep; 5.5;
 
@Natty fp
@Natty tp
@Natty ne
@Natty tp
@Natty tp
@Natty tp
@Natty fp
 
Invalidated the previous feedback on askubuntu.com/a/1277509
 
@Natty tp
@Natty tp
@Natty tp
@Natty tp
@Natty tp
@Natty tp
@Natty fp Barely an answer, but the last sentence makes it one.
@Natty tp
@Zanna I think that qualifies for a lot of close reasons... but absolutely not the one that was chosen.
@Natty tp
@Natty fp I've flagged it to request undeletion.
@Natty tp
@Natty tp I suggest converting it to a comment.
@Natty fp I've flagged the wrong canned comment as no longer needed.
@Natty tp But this should not be deleted because the author then added a comment that does propose a specific solution (which they found to work). I've edited the post to include the contents of that comment, so it is now an answer. Since I added the comment's text without changes as a second paragraph, the comment is no longer needed and I've flagged it as such.
@Natty tp
@Natty ne
@Natty tp The version Natty saw (and that is in Sentinel) is NAA. But the current version is not NAA, so the post should not be flagged or deleted.
@Natty tp I suggest converting it to a comment.
@Natty tp
@Natty fp
@Natty ne It should be phrased a lot better--so much so that I'm giving ne rather than fp feedback, and I would edit it if it were not deleted--but it's an answer. But at least at the moment, I'm rather unmotivated to flag it to request undeletion, on account of its low quality, the clarification that it didn't work for the OP, the good dupe closure, and the possible argument that it is intend solely as a request for clarification. But this should not have been deleted.
@Natty It doesn't seem like an attempt to answer, but maybe the command it is giving is being suggested as a workaround for the OP too?
@Natty tp spam
@Natty tp
@Natty tp
@Natty tp
@Natty fp
@Natty tp
@Natty tp
@user3140225 I don't see how that would be off-topic. It's a question about how to use command-line tools to process text.
@Natty tp Borderline since what it report might be regarded as a workaround. Assuming I'm right to think it ought to stay deleted, maybe it should be made into a comment? I'm not sure.
@Natty tp
@Natty tp Borderline, without context tp seems like either as NAA or VLQ. The context seems to make tp an even more reasonable choice than it would otherwise be (see comment) though my feedback isn't relying on that in this case.
 
@EliahKagan hmm... I think it is a description of the problem, since presumably the goal is to have both monitors connected
@EliahKagan added my reopen vote
forgot to check back on it
@EliahKagan heh already done
@EliahKagan I didn't want to decline that flag, so I did a sort of bad faith thing that Shog would surely disapprove of - I went to the post in the LQP queue and voted that it Looks OK (to dispute the flag). But someone else came along and flagged it, apparently
 
@Zanna I plan to vote to close it as one of the reasons I mentioned that fit it. Any thoughts as to which is best? The two best ones, I think, are OT bug and too broad. I'm not sure which of those two is better.
@Zanna Do you mean you also didn't want to mark it helpful, but specifically wanted it to come up as disputed? Because I think post flags can be marked helpful but not actioned.
@Natty I think this is an answer but it seems to me that it should be edited for clarity and to reorder some of the information. Relating to that, I'm not sure if it should get fp or ne feedback.
@Natty tp
 
6:41 PM
@EliahKagan OP commented that they reported it as a bug, so maybe that would be best
 
I had just commented about the whole situation, picked a reason, and voted to close. I picked "too broad" since if the OP prefers that it be about their second question and is able to formulate that clearly then OT bug may not apply.
 
that makes sense
:)
@EliahKagan they can... yes... sometimes I disagree with flags too much to dismiss them as helpful and not enough to decline them... in such cases I sometimes try to leave them for the queue, but sometimes I abuse my ability to find the post in the queue and to unilaterally vote for things, to pretend to be an innocent user in the queue and dispute them.
There are two things that make this attractive - first that the flag being disputed feels like being humble about my opinion, and second that the person who flagged it can see in the queue that it was me who disagreed with them and take it up with me
I am not justifying, I am just saying why it is attractive
 
 
3 hours later…
 
2 hours later…

« first day (3015 days earlier)      last day (34 days later) »