« first day (2941 days earlier)      last day (1381 days later) » 

12:49 AM
@Natty tp
@Natty tp
 
@Natty tp
@Natty tp
@Natty tp
 
 
1 hour later…
 
1 hour later…
5:15 AM
@Natty fp
@Natty tp
@Natty tp
@Natty fp
 
6:14 AM
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in link text in body, blacklisted website in body, potentially bad keyword in body (169): How to install antivirus software in ubunn 16.04? by Rosella on askubuntu.com
 
6:28 AM
this seems to be an answer although I am not completely sure what it is recommending
 
6:45 AM
 
 
3 hours later…
10:32 AM
 
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Potentially bad keyword in answer (1): Dual boot Ubuntu and Windows 10 problem by Alvee Bin Masud on askubuntu.com
 
@Natty tp
@Natty tp
 
12:15 PM
@Natty tp
@Natty fp
@Natty tp
@Natty fp
@Natty fp but that is very strange.
 
@Zanna It seems to be recommending to run bluetoothctl and then, in it, the commands
power on
discoverable on
pairable on
agent NoInputNoOutput
default-agent
pair XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX
where XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX is replaced by the hardware address of the Bluetooth device.
 
aha
I was going to try doing that to see if I could understand the answer better, but I hadn't turned my laptop on yet, and then I got distracted
can we edit it a bit and undelete it?
 
I think it can be undeleted with or without an edit.
It would be helped by a edit to link somewhere that documents bluetoothctl commands and to say how to find the hardware address of the device to pair. But it's not like the deletion was at all correct. The undeletion and the edit could be done in either order.
 
I also think so
 
12:23 PM
I do recommend editing it, but I'll custom flag it for now.
 
thank you very much
 
I've raised a custom flag.
Perhaps it will be declined on the grounds that I didn't make improvements myself--though the flag does not request improvements. (There wasn't room in the flag to fully explain why I didn't, which is as I don't have a machine available right now to test Bluetooth, and also I am not very knowledgeable about this subject.) Note that this is not a request that you handle the flag hastily: the deletion may itself have been the result of overly hasty flag handling, which needn't be repeated.
(I'm not saying it would be wrong for the post to be undeleted at any time. Obviously I don't think that's wrong, or I wouldn't have flagged to request undeletion. But I definitely don't think it should be undeleted on account of me!)
 
:) :)
I wonder if Bluetooth works on this device
awesome, it works!
 
12:41 PM
Good edit, thanks!
 
I am so grateful that I learned how to use this bluetoothctl thing haha
 
12:56 PM
reasonable edit - The grammar is correct either way but in this case seems clearer due to the edit.
Oh, my review was the second approve on that second one.
 
1:16 PM
So, should askubuntu.com/tags/lts/info be edited further so it doesn't support the misconception that upgrading is only supported between successive releases and successive LTS releases?
14
Q: Why does `do-release-upgrade` skip a version?

Mark KirbyI answered this question about do-release-upgrade not allowing an upgrade of 14.10 to 15.04 only to 15.10, I assumed it was due to 15.04 being end of life. A user (@xangua ) posted that it was not possible to skip a release with do-release-upgrade, so I looked in to this information by running t...

I'm reluctant to jam too much information in there. But right now it's inaccurate, or at least likely to be understood in a way that is inaccurate.
 
@EliahKagan I think so
 
I wonder if this tag wiki edit suggestion should get an Improve Edit review rather than Reject. It's kind of better than most tag wiki edits, because it offers usage guidance.
Actually never mind. The existing guidance, to not use the tag at all, is better.
I've likewise rejected the corresponding excerpt edit.
Both are still in the queue.
 
[ Natty | Sentinel ] Link to Post Low Length; One Line only; Low Rep; 2.5;
 
@EliahKagan Post already reported
 
1:42 PM
@EliahKagan can we come up with a pun for the troubleshooting tag to post on meta about destroying it?
 
OT 19.04
 
@Zanna I'm not thinking of anything especially good. But it is permitted for such meta posts not to have puns.
 
we could ask muru to pitch in before resorting to such a drastic course of action
 
:)
Should this question be reopened so that specific solution can be posted?
 
2:09 PM
 
2:26 PM
@EliahKagan without clicking, the answer to that is always yes from me haha
hmm although we probably have a bunch of posts about that already?
 
More targets to add?
 
very likely
 
3:04 PM
@Zanna Can we diagnose [troubleshooting] as unnecessary?
 
3:52 PM
@Natty tp
 
4:19 PM
@EliahKagan hahaha excellent
 
4:33 PM
Need help [troubleshooting] the tag
 
4:49 PM
@jokerdino also excellent XD
 
 
1 hour later…
5:59 PM
 
6:32 PM
@Kulfy I'm not sure if that's off-topic or not. I'm not insisting it isn't, but I wouldn't vote to close it. The issue is that it was posted considerably before EOL releases became off-topic, and about four months before there was evidence that community opinion had shifted toward wanting them off-topic. This is different from questions about releases that are non-EOL when the question is posted, which is unambiguously on-topic. But it seems like a case where we have no clear policy.
Some of the relevant history and timing can be found in my old meta post Can we update the FAQ to reflect the apparent change in EoL policy?
 
 
2 hours later…
8:43 PM
@Natty tp
All six comments on this answer are no longer needed.
 
9:04 PM
@Natty tp
 
@Natty tp
 

« first day (2941 days earlier)      last day (1381 days later) »