Timeline for My question was incorrectly put on-hold for "being about video games"
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:45 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://rpg.stackexchange.com/ with https://rpg.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Jan 15, 2017 at 23:15 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie Mod | @nitsua60 Yeah, usually there's no need to. When the user is persistently confused about the wrong close reason being visible though, it can sometimes be helpful to eliminate that as a source of contention with a quick moderator reopen and reclose with the corrected reason. | |
| Jan 15, 2017 at 3:13 | comment | added | nitsua60 | Turns out I was wrong! A moderator went ahead and changed the close-reason. Note to future readers: close reasons can and might be changed, but I (and six comment-upvoters, presumably) don't generally see much of a need to do so. | |
| Jan 15, 2017 at 2:09 | comment | added | a3eb5744 | It was reframed and corrected long before I made this post on meta. Please re-read. Thanks! | |
| Jan 15, 2017 at 0:55 | history | edited | doppelgreener | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 26 characters in body
|
| Jan 15, 2017 at 0:51 | comment | added | nitsua60 | But the close-reason isn't going to be adjusted, because experience shows there's really no need to do this. Either OP will edit and the question will get reopened and it'll never matter that for a day or two the "wrong" reason showed, or they won't and the post'll lie abandoned, and eventually a Roomba will suck it up. | |
| Jan 15, 2017 at 0:47 | history | answered | doppelgreener | CC BY-SA 3.0 |