« first day (2718 days earlier)      last day (1603 days later) » 

12:25 AM
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Link at end of answer (60): I am unable to install latest version of R by Pedro Rafael on askubuntu.com
 
 
1 hour later…
[ Natty | Sentinel ] Link to Post Low Length; Contains Whitelisted Word - my problem was; Low Rep; 0.5;
 
 
1 hour later…
2:52 AM
Some Error Occurred on this post
 
@Natty tp
 
3:34 AM
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Blacklisted website in answer, potentially bad ns for domain in answer (94): Is there software that can view .dwg files? by Zebulon Turrentine on askubuntu.com
 
5:19 AM
 
[ Natty | Sentinel ] Link to Post Low Length; No Code Block; One Line only; Low Rep; 3.0;
 
6:00 AM
 
6:12 AM
^^ Retracted and left a comment for OP as not sure if it will work for the specific application. Let's see what OP says.
 
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Url-only title, bad keyword in body, bad keyword in title, blacklisted website in body, blacklisted website in title, +7 more (791): dragonsdenketo.com/luniesse-skin-cream-uk/ by buhgdmkophgm on askubuntu.com
 
[ Natty | Sentinel ] Link to Post Low Length; Contains Whitelisted Word - Workaround; Low Rep; 1.0;
 
7:07 AM
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Blacklisted website in body, potentially bad ns for domain in body (100): Best Electric Shavers Five Ways To Suffering From An Obession! by gillanhesw5 on askubuntu.com
 
7:22 AM
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Blacklisted website in body, body starts with title and ends in url, link at end of body, pattern-matching product name in body, pattern-matching website in body, +2 more (493): Testo Alpha EX The fixings by nhjkdmko on askubuntu.com
 
7:34 AM
OT Debian
 
 
1 hour later…
 
2 hours later…
11:50 AM
oh they all are
should we now flag these for mod attention?
 
1:25 PM
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in answer, link at end of answer (146): Epson L360 printer detected but not printing on Ubuntu 18.04. I tried few options already by Sad Dam on askubuntu.com
 
 
1 hour later…
2:49 PM
@Zanna I'm not sure. Maybe this reflects that people don't believe they should actually be considered duplicates.
@Natty tp
@Natty tp
How did this edit get an Approve review?
 
3:17 PM
It's almost as clear now as it was before the recent clarifying edit, and still clear enough to be open. :)
 
@EliahKagan VTR
 
3:32 PM
This question isn't great, but it was apparently clear enough to answer in a way that both applies to the OP and will be useful for others to read.
I don't think this question is off-topic or too broad. See answer.
This very specific question is not too broad.
 
3:52 PM
OT Windows - this does not appear to be about an Ubuntu WSL system
 
Does the absence of anyone listed as a reviewer mean no one reviewed it?
 
I think so
 
Downboat regulars, when able, tried to vote, which should have reduced the number of vote counts needed from people not familiar with the questions; you publicized it on meta; and karel posted the links, twice, in AUGR. I don't know why that was not enough, but given that it wasn't, I think at may well be that people saw them and decided not to vote to close.
 
When someone reviewed it, I see them
 
4:00 PM
I think you should feel free to flag them and that your flags should be marked helpful. Based on the guidelines SE gave to mods about when to mark flags helpful, back when they communicated openly in the mod newsletter that could be read by anyone. Whether or not a mod should close the questions in response to your flags, I am not sure.
Whether or not a mod would even mark them helpful, or what the current super-secret guidance given to mods in the super-secret places SE uses now, I don't know either. But you have many helpful flags and, I presume, comparably few flags marked unhelpful. If you believe it would be right for a moderator to dupe those questions, I think you should flag.
 
Of all 10 review tasks, only that one shows any reviewer
 
(It's totally peripheral to the dupe issue at hand here, but regarding the post in the mod newsletter about which flags should be marked helpful: stackmod.blog/2011/09/september-2011-newsletter)
 
@EliahKagan nice!
@EliahKagan yes, indeed it is very possible that that is what happened
I haven't reviewed anything at all lately, thus causing terrible congestion of queues
Probably
Therefore it is all my fault
I have a total of 27 declined flags
 
@Zanna The blog still exists and has been updated in recent times, but it's not called the mod newsletter anymore, and its function as a mod newsletter appears--based on what mods and SE employees have been saying lately--to have been largely supplanted by the private team for mods (on Stack Overflow Teams) and by the TL.
@Zanna That seems like something of an overstatement. :)
 
I wouldn't allow myself to be deterred from doing something only by fear of declined flags, but I do find it disheartening to get them
 
4:10 PM
@Zanna That's fewer than I have: I have 27 declined post flags, plus 74 declined comment flags. Anyway, unless all 27 of your declined flags just happened, I don't think you're at risk of accruing too many declined flags.
 
I was sorry to hear from some that the TL is not a nice place to be. That's disappointing!
@EliahKagan :)
@EliahKagan maybe
I will review the posts thoroughly and see if any of them really obviously should be closed or if there might be any case for leaving any of them open and consider flagging after doing tgat
I will review the posts thoroughly and see if any of them really obviously should be closed or if there might be any case for leaving any of them open and consider flagging after doing that
 
Would it be reasonable to move the call to reopen them out of your meta answer that did not originally have it and into a newly asked meta question?
I considered doing that a while ago myself, but I feel that it might not be well received--and understandably so--because it would be a campaign to get questions closed as duplicates of a question that I answered. (This would be no problem of the question I answered were a long-standing canonical question but in this case it has only very recently become "the" question about installing VMware Player.)
One possible benefit of a new meta question is that it might get answers about improvements that could be made to the target question or its answers (especially my answer) that, for whatever reason, people haven't done as edits or edit suggestions.
 
That seems much better than my idea, because it involves multiple more knowledgeable smarter people looking into it
 
Unrelated to the VMware question... how are the site's tag wikis doing?
I don't see hardly any tag wiki edits these days, when reviewing suggested edits.
 
@EliahKagan same... can we do some sort of tag wiki edit project?
 
I posted on meta
 
@Natty fp
@Zanna Thanks.
Looks good.
@Zanna I think that could be a good idea.
What do you have in mind?
I am thinking it might be good to look at the tag wikis for the most popular tags.
 
4:50 PM
That sounds like a great place to start
@EliahKagan nothing I just know I find it really hard to get anything done without a structure
 
Yes, but it's also hard to get things done with a structure. :)
 
That's true
Possibly I just like to create a structure so that I'll feel like I'm getting things done even if... I'm not
 
I think it could be useful to apply what I'll call the "pseudocompetitive heuristic." That is, do we have tags whose tag wikis are no better, as tag wikis for Ask Ubuntu tags, than the tag wikis that currently exist on other sites for the same-named tags would be, if they were our tag wikis?
My idea is not to replace our tag wikis even partially by text of those from other sites, but rather that every site's tag wikis should be better for that site than all other sites' same-named tag wikis. (This can be achieved for all sites at once, though I don't know if it's worthwhile to undertake the effort to achieve it for all tags on all sites.)
But maybe that's more distracting than useful. I don't know.
At least for the popular tags, our tag wikis should contain an explanation of the topic, links to important questions in the tag, and guidance on when to use the tag, and the guidance should make sense and be easily found.
 
That also sounds like a helpful approach for me since I'm much better at developing and reworking things than originating.
 
@EliahKagan I don't really know how that can be achieved for version tags because there's no agreement about how they should be used. But for the other popular tags it should be achievable.
@Zanna I'm not sure how helpful because I think that, in most cases, our tag wikis should be at most inspired by the tag wikis on other sites. Tag wiki excerpts basically can't incorporate material from other tag wikis due to limitations on formatting that make citation usually impractical and nearly always cumbersome. Full tag wikis can contain material taken from anywhere compatibly licensed, with attribution, of course... but tag wikis should be oriented toward our site and its users.
 
5:05 PM
Sure, I'm not thinking of copying anything. I just mean if I see someone has written sections on a, b and c, that will suggest to me that I could write sections on b, d and e
@EliahKagan hahaha I just went away to look at the tags and came back here to say "there isn't any actual consensus on how to use version tags is there?"
The tag has almost nothing
Can certainly write something for that!
 
That's a metaphor for how when you boot almost nothing is loaded.
 
@EliahKagan Post already reported
 
@EliahKagan maybe we should leave it then
 
No, it's okay, putting more things in it will be a metaphor for how booting causes more things to happen so that you can actually use your computer.
 
:D
The tag tag wiki looks very improveable
 
5:25 PM
What are you thinking of for it?
Maybe 's full tag wiki would benefit from a list of questions in the form shown in the tag wiki for the makefile tag on Stack Overflow.
 
Some updating and some more detail and related tags and... yes, exactly, some useful popular questions
 
What I like about the makefile tag on SO is that it goes through a list of mistakes and gives the questions about them, rather than just a list of questions. I'm not sure should have a list of mistakes, per se, but it is in some way analogous. I thinking about how...
Sometimes one must run sudo apt update before sudo apt upgrade or sudo apt install.
-y and dist-upgrade are rarely appropriate, but both are overused, together and separately.
The universe repository has to be enabled to install software from it (though that's sometimes done automatically). Same with multiverse.
When adding a third-party repository, one should add its public key. Also, NO_PUBKEY errors should basically never be responded to by disabling signature checking, which is a huge security hole.
Warnings from APT that proceeding will break the system should be heeded. As a corollary, whatever version of python came with the system should not be uninstalled.
 
@EliahKagan Reopened
 
@EliahKagan I'm not sure we actually have questions for all those things. Also, that's an incomplete list.
@Kulfy Thanks.
 
6:00 PM
Yes exactly all those things you said
About APT
 
6:20 PM
And the -s option
 
Do we have something for this? Or should I convert my comment into an answer?
Or the existing answer is enough?
 
@Zanna Yes.
I can't believe I forgot to list that.
 
@EliahKagan A related one is, for actions that make a change rather than performing a query, and when not running a simulation, one needs to run apt as root (e.g., sudo apt install).
 
dupe (See comments for the error message)
 
6:29 PM
@EliahKagan Also, running sudo apt -f install when messages say to do so -- and the difference between that and sudo dpkg --configure -a.
 
Sorry for interrupting. I was going through some of my comments and found these unclosed dupe/unclear questions.
 
@Kulfy There's no interruption--please keep the CV stuff coming! Also, while I think both topics are within the scope of the Downboat, it's the specific details of a specific proposed tag wiki change that should be moved to the Island if anything needs to be. (The more general discussion of tag wiki changes should probably remain here, I think, but once the specifics of a particular change or possible change get long and technical, that moves into what the Island was made for.)
@Kulfy I'm not sure. If they merge all those, thereby getting rid of the EFI partition, that may break their system. Maybe it should have an answer that explains that and also summarizes and links to the proposed target?
 
Tanmap's comment already mentioned that. But it seems the question is abandoned since OP haven't replied.
They didn't login again
 
I think that's okay, since the question is answerable.
(Similarly, if it's decided it's a dupe, it can be closed as a dupe rather than unclear or no repro, even though the OP didn't come back.)
 
Yeah. Do you think it should remain open then?
 
6:39 PM
I don't think it should be closed as a duplicate of just a question about merging partitions. It may be that it should remain open. Unless there's something else that addresses the desire to merge partitions in a way that would get rid of an EFI partition, thereby making a system installed in UEFI mode unbootable, I think it should remain open and receive an answer. I don't think that danger is actually dependent on LUKS being in use.
(This is for the EFI partition -- the separate boot partition can be removed usually, and some LUKS setups can make that inadvisable... but that's not what I'm really worried about for that OP and future readers.)
@Kulfy I think you should convert your comment into an answer. The existing answer is valuable but it does not have the depth of your comment.
 
@EliahKagan Okay I'll do that.
@EliahKagan Is this helpful?
 
@Kulfy Thanks.
@Kulfy The question itself?
 
Yeah. May be that can be as one of the dupe target.
Merging EFI partition to other partition and deleting EFI partition is I think similar thing.
 
If you have no EFI partition and you install Ubuntu, the installer creates one.
But if you have an Ubuntu system already and you remove the EFI partition, I still expect that to break the system.
Huh - bug in the new post notices?
unclear (relatedly: what?)
 
@EliahKagan Seems
 
6:52 PM
@EliahKagan Btw, I don't think that question is actually off-topic, though I see why some people consider it to be. I've voted to reopen it.
@Kulfy That the new post notice lists the OP as a close voter even if they did not vote to close the question?
 
No. I think they unknowingly cast a vote since having 250 points allows you to do that.
 
Oh. Yeah. That may be.
 
I don't think it's a bug since apart from banner, the timeline also shows their name in close voters.
 
By I thought you meant an accurate description of behavior that is intended.
But wait a minute -- do they have enough rep to cast close votes?
That requires more than twice the rep they have? Have they really had that much rep before?
 
I have added an answer.
 
6:57 PM
In light of the OP's rep, do you think your answer is correct?
If so, you may want to explain that in the answer.
Or am I missing something here?
Oh, I see. I'm sorry
 
I think you're missing this
 
@Kulfy Yeah it's a different rep requirement for people's own questions. I wonder when that change was made. Anyway, that's my bad for not noticing that.
@Kulfy Correct. The part of that where people can cast close votes on their own questions is exactly what I was missing. I apologize.
 
No need to apologize :)
Now questions shows "closed" immediately. Earlier they used to show [on hold] for 5 days.
 
Thanks.
 
Thanks for the upvote :)
 
7:07 PM
In this case your guess as to who upvoted your answer is correct. :)
 
Should I delete the comment?
 
I'm not sure.
Eventually yes.
Immediately, you could, but I'm not sure it's necessary.
 
7:24 PM
Okay.
 
"Needs more focus" is the new "too broad"? Eh??
 
Yes.
 
I feel "too broad" was more specific
 
7:56 PM
 
[ Natty | Sentinel ] Link to Post Low Length; No Code Block; Contains Whitelisted Word - Workaround; Low Rep; 1.0;
 
^^ Though maybe it should be expanded rather than deleted.
 
 
1 hour later…
[ Natty | Sentinel ] Link to Post Low Length; No Code Block; Low Rep; 2.0;
 
[ Natty | Sentinel ] Link to Post Low Length; No Code Block; Contains Whitelisted Word - this worked for me; Low Rep; 1.5;
 
9:56 PM
Should this really be considered an answer to the question that was asked, under an interpretation of the question that allows the question to be on-topic for this site?
(The way I've asked that is leading--but I'm not actually sure. So far, I have not flagged the post.)
The question, though it doesn't qualify for closure (unless it turns out to be a duplicate), is not very good, and it's hard to answer such a question well. For this reason, I haven't voted on that answer either.
 

« first day (2718 days earlier)      last day (1603 days later) »