Post History
Apologies for taking a while to respond to this. When I used the phrase "hasn't been discussed", I was talking about the meta discussion at hand, rather than prior discussions. I rejected the edit,...
Answer
#2: Post edited
by
Canina
·
2021-05-21T09:06:14Z (over 3 years ago)
- Apologies for taking a while to respond to this. When I used the phrase "hasn't been discussed", I was talking about the meta discussion at hand, rather than prior discussions. I rejected the edit, then, for three reasons:
* aCVn hadn't explicitly stated that they supported removing the reality-check tag, and adding it to the question is essentially putting words into their mouth.- * I think it would be helpful for each tag proposed for removal to have its own answer under the newer discussion giving a rationale for removal. I'm also not sure that the suggested edit did so.
- * [My previous answer](https://scientific-speculation.codidact.com/questions/275792#answer-275795) that called for the removal of reality-check only got two upvotes, which . . . probably doesn't count as community consensus. Granted, the site was even smaller then, but that doesn't mean that the community agrees, and I'd be loathe to claim that it does without further discussion.
- I think that's what I'd been trying to say when I rejected the edit.
- Apologies for taking a while to respond to this. When I used the phrase "hasn't been discussed", I was talking about the meta discussion at hand, rather than prior discussions. I rejected the edit, then, for three reasons:
- * The user in question hadn't explicitly stated that they supported removing the reality-check tag, and adding it to the question is essentially putting words into their mouth.
- * I think it would be helpful for each tag proposed for removal to have its own answer under the newer discussion giving a rationale for removal. I'm also not sure that the suggested edit did so.
- * [My previous answer](https://scientific-speculation.codidact.com/questions/275792#answer-275795) that called for the removal of reality-check only got two upvotes, which . . . probably doesn't count as community consensus. Granted, the site was even smaller then, but that doesn't mean that the community agrees, and I'd be loathe to claim that it does without further discussion.
- I think that's what I'd been trying to say when I rejected the edit.
#1: Initial revision
by
HDE 226868
·
2020-08-07T14:20:56Z (over 4 years ago)
Apologies for taking a while to respond to this. When I used the phrase "hasn't been discussed", I was talking about the meta discussion at hand, rather than prior discussions. I rejected the edit, then, for three reasons: * aCVn hadn't explicitly stated that they supported removing the reality-check tag, and adding it to the question is essentially putting words into their mouth. * I think it would be helpful for each tag proposed for removal to have its own answer under the newer discussion giving a rationale for removal. I'm also not sure that the suggested edit did so. * [My previous answer](https://scientific-speculation.codidact.com/questions/275792#answer-275795) that called for the removal of reality-check only got two upvotes, which . . . probably doesn't count as community consensus. Granted, the site was even smaller then, but that doesn't mean that the community agrees, and I'd be loathe to claim that it does without further discussion. I think that's what I'd been trying to say when I rejected the edit.