sempaiscuba

Suggested edit from an anonymous user: Remove the words 'on Earth' from the phrase 'What on Earth', on the grounds that it is offensive. I guess the aliens really are among us! XD

If you're a 23andMe user, It's probably worth checking if the hack affects you.

From TechCrunch: 23andMe confirms hackers stole ancestry data on 6.9 million users

Cervantes (best known as the author of Don Quixote) and William Shakespeare died on the same date, April 23 1616; although Cervantes died ten days before Shakespeare.

Which brings me to one of my all-time favourite history facts:

Also, RIP William Shakespeare, English dramatist and actor, who died 23 April 1616.

And, while I'm at it, Happy Birthday to William Shakespeare, English dramatist and actor, who was (probably) born on 23 April 1564 (he was definitely baptised on 26 April 1564).

Happy St. George's Day, everyone!

If anyone is interested, FindMyPast are having an event with 50% off on UK 1921 census records. If you were holding off because of the cost, now might be your moment. The offer ends at 23:59 on Monday 25 April UK time.

Well, that's probably just me. I never understood, or had any real interest in, meaningless Internet points. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

@Juraj That's odd. I always thought the 2 rep points was to encourage newer users to actually participate in the user-moderation tasks on SE sites. Something a lot of SE sites (including Arduino:SE) seem to have a problem with.

So presumably, in that case, such edits are not trivial. Or does Arduino:SE have a different policy?

@Juraj However, the Meta:SE post Should 'Hi', 'thanks', taglines, and salutations be removed from posts? makes it clear that "meta" information should be removed from posts.

bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56951752

I suspect that quite a few people with small drones might get caught out!

Just in case anyone in Europe was unaware Drone users face new rules across Europe and UK

Congratulations Mark, T.E.D., Semaphore and Robert.

The election page currently shows that 206 people have voted. 207 constituent badges have been awarded. It would appear that only one of those who voted during last week's abortive election has not yet returned to cast their vote this time around.

@LаngLаngС No deleted comments. As of now, there are just the 7 comments on the question, and the 4 on your answer.

At least, that's my 2d worth.

Whereas "why was it never Germanised?" both implies that you think it somehow should have been Germanised (even if that is not the case), and may also be inherently impossible to answer objectively in a manner that is supported by historical sources.

That should be a question that is answerable using historical methods and sources (of course, the answer may simply be "no", or "it seems not").

"Did anyone in Germany ever suggest renaming the Pour le Mérite medal? If so, are there records of the arguments for and against that change?"

You then add the quote from Campe, asking why there wasn't an equivalent medal with a German name, and - I think - you have a reasonable question that is in scope for History:SE.

People with sufficient rep can see the deleted question, everyone else should get the gist from the title.

@LаngLаngС If it were me, I'd go with something like: "Following up on the [now deleted] question, Why is this Prussian medal name in French language and never changed?, it occurs to me to ask ..."

But, then again, I can't always predict how our various communities will respond so … "yer pays yer money and yer takes yer chances".

@LаngLаngС I just re-read your question. I think (for me) the problematic part remains the "... why was it never Germanised?" element. It might have been better if you had simply asked the question in your last paragraph, citing the previous question and some of the research you found (e.g. the comment by Campe) as motivation & prior research.

@LаngLаngС I've already explained my problem with your version of that question, and how it reads. As for the original, the comment by Jos dealt with the "why was it named this" part, and imo, "why wasn't it changed" is inherently a problematic question.

And now we get this, which I expect will meet the same fate as the OP's previous low-quality questions, and which may also attract more of those 'hostile' comments.

But I could just as easily be wrong.

I'm just saying that I think I understand the underlying problem that explains those elements.

Your original point was about hostile comments and quick close/down votes.

@LаngLаngС Yep. But one problem at a time.

And assuming good intentions, I see those 'hostile' comments as the responses of other users who anticipate similar problems and outcomes. I'm guessing that the same people are also casting the down-votes and close-votes.

So, yes, I get a sinking feeling when I see a relatively low-quality question, which should probably be closed, but which I suspect won't be, and which will probably also attract equally problematic answers (and the almost inevitable moderator flags that will come with them)

Personally, I think there are things about our rules that could do with some improvement, but I also really don't think that ignoring those rules is the way forward.

IMO (and as I have said many times before), the fact that we don't have a clear mechanism for determining what we mean by consensus really doesn't help.

"Intentionally disrupting an online community" is one of the definitions of troll-like behaviour (see, for example the paper Anyone Can Become a Troll: Causes of Trolling Behavior in Online Discussions ), so that frustration may be legitimate.

@LаngLаngС Perhaps so. But when people are voting to leave questions open, that should very clearly be closed under those rules, I can understand the frustrations felt by the people who agree with those rules.

@LаngLаngС At present, there is just 1 question in the close vote queue (the very question that we were discussing above, in fact)

@LаngLаngС "I wonder what those refusing to provide refs, upvoting zero research questions want it to be?" See my previous observations about multiple communities on History:SE. My guess is that those attitudes feed into the comments you feel are hostile.

But comments asking for more information, pointing out problems in questions or answers, or asking for more information / clarification are also a form of moderation.

@LаngLаngС The "why" is easy. Just look at the histories for each queue. We don't get all that many reviews in each queue in a given day. You're more likely to find close votes because it takes 3 or 5 votes to remove an item from the queue.

Even SE moderators do not get issued with windows into men's souls!

Of course, that might just be me projecting my own views onto what is happening.

It looks to me as if the tension between the different groups of user who want different things from History:SE that I noted in another post may be manifesting in these cases. The fact that only a small percentage of our total userbase actually gets involved in community moderation probably doesn't help.

@LаngLаngС I take your point, and that 'pattern' has not escaped my attention. But assuming good will on the part of those who posted the comments, my suspicion is that there is an element of frustration behind them. Comments like that do tend to be applied to questions that are very 'borderline' under our current guidelines.