Timeline for Is reverse voting or merging a solution in this case?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 12, 2019 at 17:57 | history | edited | ZannaMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 14 characters in body
|
| Jan 16, 2019 at 14:27 | history | edited | ZannaMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 81 characters in body
|
| Jan 15, 2019 at 17:13 | comment | added | Kulfy | Looks like fair points but still it is forcing me to rethink. Don't know why. | |
| Jan 15, 2019 at 16:55 | comment | added | Zanna Mod | I have not argued that the closed question should be reopened, since anyone who wants to post an answer to it would be able to post that answer to the target (as I mentioned in the 2nd paragraph of my answer, with the current close direction, all possible answers to the dupe are a subset of all possible answers to the target, so the close direction is better as it is than if it were reversed). I only said I would prefer reopening (productive) to merging (destructive). | |
| Jan 15, 2019 at 16:55 | comment | added | Zanna Mod | @Kulfy we should not retitle the currently closed question, because its title seems to be perfect (judging by the number of views) and I cannot see anything wrong with it or to improve about it. The currently open question may benefit from retitling. I suggested a title for it in the second paragraph of my TL;DR. But the current title is also fine, not a bad title. | |
| Jan 15, 2019 at 14:02 | comment | added | Kulfy | Meanwhile, I think that dupe can be reopened and title can be edited like "How to do factory reset from command line?". Should it be? | |
| Jan 15, 2019 at 13:52 | history | edited | ZannaMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Jan 15, 2019 at 12:10 | history | edited | ZannaMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Jan 15, 2019 at 11:28 | history | answered | ZannaMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |