« first day (1940 days earlier)      last day (579 days later) » 

3:47 AM
NAA (neither the intent nor the effect there is to recommend a different method). Also the accept comment on the other answer is no-longer-needed (it's not doing any good anymore, they've seen it, there was one on the question too that I flagged away).
4:19 AM
Probably dupe, but maybe wait for the OP's reply to my comment.
1 hour later…
5:38 AM
I feel like we should figure out a way to query for comments that appear to be saying that the system automatically deletes answers (like this one), to see if that is--or was--a common misconception.
6:06 AM
This is totally a duplicate of something we had recently, about the phasing out of the 32-bit version, or at least of the ISO images. But I can't find it. ...Aha!
And the question can be considered unclear, I think.
@EliahKagan That spam is sticking around for so long... contrary to usual best practice with spam, would it be appropriate to just kill it with delete votes at this point?
6:21 AM
I clicked when I saw it in the queue
@EliahKagan agreed & voted
that got it :)
Oh yeah...
...I should probably install that plugin!
it was Byte Commander in Charcoal HQ
2 hours later…
8:15 AM
@Zanna: Could you please explain to me how askubuntu.com/questions/965944/… is specific to another Linux distro?
Well, I know the answer and it's valid on Ubuntu. But I voted because I come down on the side of not allowing any questions about other distros. Saying oh it's alright if the question is about command line, it's alright because we can answer it here... is the thin end of the wedge imho.
I'm not biting on the slippery slope argument. We can easily draw the lines on things that are likely to be different, e. g. anything depending on particular package repositories, system configuration and whatnot. mv invocation depends on almost nothing on any sane Linux distribution.
Anyway, terdon just converted the close reason.
8:32 AM
ok. Thanks for your edit to fix it
7 hours later…
3:45 PM
@DavidFoerster I have no problem with the change to the close reason, but I don't follow your argument at all. Our actual policies, summarized in the help and established by community consensus on meta, say what to do with questions that are not about Ubuntu because a different distro, and not Ubuntu, is being used.
When something is the same as Ubuntu but on a different distro, we still close it. When something is the same as on a different distro but on Ubuntu, we still leave it open.
Q: Are Linux Mint (and other unofficial derivatives of Ubuntu) questions on topic?

8128(Inspired by this question about Mint. ) You only have to look at Wikipedia to find a long long list of Ubuntu derivatives - should we allow, or even actively encourage, questions regarding these on Ask Ubuntu?

Q: Why are questions about (specifically) Ubuntu based distros off-limits?

Karthik TI can understand (in general) questions about non-Ubuntu distros being off-limits. But is there a reason that questions about distros like Linux Mint which derive directly from Ubuntu are also off-limits? Is it because Ask Ubuntu is funded by Canonical or anything like that?

You mentioned:
> We can easily draw the lines on things that are likely to be different, e. g. anything depending on particular package repositories, system configuration and whatnot.
I think you'll have a hard time finding any evidence of an existing consensus toward the policy that reviewers should make a technical assessment of each question to figure out if it is likely enough to have the same answers on Ubuntu. If you want to change the policy to that, I suggest posting on meta.
I have no objection to closing otherwise OT stuff as duplicates. I also have no problem letting things slide when a question already has answers that see to be valuable here. But the idea that we should appoint close reviewers as experts on other operating systems for the purposes of adjudicating whether they are enough like Ubuntu for specific purposes is, I think, entirely unworkable.
s/see to be/seem to be/
4:38 PM
@karel I know that question isn't very well asked and sort of verges on unclear, but I'm pretty sure your comment answers it. Would you be willing to post an answer about that?
@Zanna Whoa, is there a bug (feature?) in the way edit collisions are resolved? That question doesn't agree with the text of its most recent revision!
depending on what OP wants, which isn't very clear, the question could be a dupe... pretty sure @edwinksl has some answers about anaconda prepending itself to PATH
@EliahKagan sorry!
and my answer just cites the anaconda documentation, lol
haha yeah that's very weird
@Zanna No apology necessary. Unless, perhaps, you are apologizing for what Stack Exchange did here.
@Zanna So it's not just for me? You also see the text of the post body as different form the text of the 3rd and most recent revision of the post body?
@EliahKagan yeah!
4:44 PM
We should report this as a bug. Did you notice anything odd when you were editing?
Also do you think this would go better on Ask Ubuntu Meta or Meta Stack Exchange?
nothing weird happened. After I edited, the grey bar popped up saying "an edit has been made to this post" I clicked it and saw your revision, but my picture still there
OK. Unless you prefer to do so, I'll report it on MSE, because I have more details that I can contribute to explain what may have happened.
Hold on, I'm saving it in the Wayback Machine in case a subsequent edit wipes out the currently displayed text.
please go ahead and report it :)
5:10 PM
@EliahKagan Yes, I will post an answer to that question. It's the kind of thing that I would do.
@karel Thanks!
5:27 PM
@Zanna I've posted it.
3 hours later…
8:02 PM
I was able to select this review comment because it was a thanks answer by the OP. Have we always had that comment, for voting to delete an NAA self-answer?
I've seen it posted by others in recent months, but I think it was added recently
2 hours later…
10:06 PM
Not an SE bug, but nonintuitive: askubuntu.com/review/low-quality-posts/765727
I wonder if there is any limit to the number of Edit reviews an LQP item can get after it has exited the queue.

« first day (1940 days earlier)      last day (579 days later) »