Timeline for Suggested edit to explicitly address a naming discrepancy. Why was it rejected?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 8, 2019 at 17:47 | comment | added | trlkly | Also, the argument "I know the guidelines say one thing, but I say another" is not a good one. The Questioner has the guidelines on their side. Your opinion should not trump them. | |
| Dec 8, 2019 at 17:41 | comment | added | trlkly | It very much is a double standard. You are arguing that the reason for rejecting is that the clarification belongs in the comments not the Answer. Yet you are willing to add it to your own Answer. Either such things belong in the Answer or in the comments. You can't say they belong in your Answers but not in other people's Answers. | |
| Dec 2, 2019 at 14:53 | comment | added | TheLethalCarrot Mod | @desertnaut Not a double standard and it's my own post to do with as I wish. And yeah I added it as a footnote to clear it up because it wasn't relevant to the answer (like here). If it wasn't my own post I would have left a comment. | |
| Dec 2, 2019 at 14:50 | comment | added | desertnaut | Interestingly enough, you don't seem to apply the same rationale for your own posts, which you do edit in order to include info from the comments, even if you judge them to be "not too relevant (yeah, I know, it looks nicer, doesn't it?). With all due respect, it seems like double standard to me | |
| Dec 2, 2019 at 11:42 | comment | added | TheLethalCarrot Mod | @desertnaut To me dig it up holds the connotation that its more than just open a link and glance at the meta panel. I'm also aware that the time argument isn't very strong, it was only a side/minor point as I stated. And yeah if it is better as a comment, it is better as a comment not an edit as part of an answer so yeah it does make sense to reject it. | |
| Dec 2, 2019 at 11:39 | comment | added | desertnaut | Thanks for taking the time to answer. "Dig up" means that the relevant info is in the last (5th) paragraph of the linked wiki, so not really handy; and the argument "if anyone was still confused in that time they would have worked it out by now" does not hold - I was confused before looking it up and commenting. Even if you consider that it was better as a comment, this does not sound as a valid reason for rejecting en edit which did make the answer more accurate and complete. | |
| Dec 2, 2019 at 9:49 | history | answered | TheLethalCarrotMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |