Timeline for Why reject a suggested edit to add a link for a likely-to-be-mysterious acronym?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:38 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://english.stackexchange.com/ with https://english.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 16:02 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.english.stackexchange.com/ with https://english.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 16:02 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.english.stackexchange.com/ with https://english.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 15, 2016 at 0:41 | vote | accept | lauir | ||
| Mar 10, 2016 at 7:11 | answer | added | user140086 | timeline score: 2 | |
| Mar 9, 2016 at 21:03 | comment | added | Mari-Lou A | related:Should we discourage the use of argot such as AmE, BrE, ELU, …? | |
| Mar 9, 2016 at 15:40 | comment | added | lauir | True, it would be better to duplicate the link to the dictionary entry. I'm sure it's been mentioned before, probably everywhere on SE, but actual tooltips would nice to have. The link I suggested, if clicked, at least shows what that monogram-looking thing means. (For a good time, ask MW what MW means) | |
| Mar 9, 2016 at 15:01 | comment | added | choster | I didn't vote on either of these, but I don't understand the logic of linking to a glossary when you can link it to the source. Hovering over [MW] would reveal a link to Merriam-Webster, identifying the source and the abbreviation together. A link to a Meta post is more mysterious, because in most cases it points to a discussion on a question or point of policy, which is unnecessary here. | |
| Mar 9, 2016 at 14:12 | history | edited | lauir | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
minor touchup
|
| Mar 9, 2016 at 14:05 | answer | added | Kit Z. FoxMod | timeline score: 1 | |
| Mar 9, 2016 at 13:54 | history | asked | lauir | CC BY-SA 3.0 |