Activity for Monica Cellio
| Type | On... | Excerpt | Status | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Edit | Post #276482 |
Post edited: |
— | about 2 months ago |
| Edit | Post #288724 | Initial revision | — | 10 months ago |
| Question | — |
Should posting on Meta affect reputation? When we launched this community, we did not yet have the ability to set different reputation grants for different categories. We've had this for a while but we failed to follow up before now, sorry. Do you want us to change posts on Meta to not award rep for upvotes or subtract it for downvotes? ... (more) |
— | 10 months ago |
| Edit | Post #287491 | Initial revision | — | over 1 year ago |
| Answer | — |
A: Is Scientific Speculation the Right Place for a Discussion Series About Space Sports? I'm speaking as a regular user here despite that "staff" label next to my name. Scope is decided by communities, not imposed from above. I think science-based questions about sports, like golf in low-gravity or sailing in high atmospheric pressure or fishing in waters of different composition, et... (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #287430 | Initial revision | — | over 1 year ago |
| Answer | — |
A: Incorrect number of answers showing in questions list This appears to be a data error related to imported questions. The question was imported with four answers on 2020-05-04. On 2021-03-02, a script deleted zero-score answers from accounts that were unclaimed -- that is, answers where the author never came and created an account here, and where nob... (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287273 |
Thanks for your reply. I hope you get the answers you're looking for. (I'm not equipped to help, sorry.) (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287273 |
Hello. You've posted a few questions in the Rigorous Science category, and I wonder if you meant to post them in Q&A instead? Rigorous Science is intended for questions that have already had some research behind them -- think science journals rather than more casual settings. See these [category g... (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #286604 |
Oh, editing help! Yes, I agree. Right now the contents of the right column are fixed (you see the same stuff when reading or editing), but I'd like to instead place some editing guidance there when in the editor. (more) |
— | almost 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #286604 |
If you figure out what happened, please do let me know -- sounds like it was a frustrating friction point, and if it's something under our control I'd like to try to fix it. (more) |
— | almost 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #286604 |
Could you help me understand the login problem? Are you saying that you had an account on SciSpec, you were browsing Writing where you do not have an account, and you couldn't log in from there but had to come here? If so, sounds like an oversight on our part and I'll file a bug so we can try to ge... (more) |
— | almost 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #286604 |
Thank you for sharing your impressions as a new user! A couple comments/answers to points you raised:
The LaTeX help is in the [formatting](https://scientific-speculation.codidact.com/help/formatting) help. You didn't find it, though, so: any thoughts on where else we should link to that? If the r... (more) |
— | almost 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #285030 | Initial revision | — | over 2 years ago |
| Question | — |
How can we grow this community? Codidact's communities have a lot of great content that is helping people on the Internet. Our communities are small, though, and sustainable communities depend on having lots of active, engaged participants. The folks already here are doing good work; our challenge is to find more people like you ... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284819 |
Hello and welcome to Codidact! We did a bulk import of many questions from WB.SE when we set up this community on Codidact. I don't see any associated with your profile, so that suggests you haven't claimed them. If you go to your profile "edit" page you should see a place at the bottom where you ... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #283763 |
What problem are you trying to solve? You don't want bureaucracy to be the answer, but I can't tell what the question is meant to be. (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #283286 |
@#8049 thanks; I've filed an internal ticket so somebody with the right access can do it. (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #283286 |
Unfortunately we don't have the UI for suggesting edits to tag wikis yet. :-( We've been suggesting that communities use meta to work them out, and then a mod (or someone with the Edit Tags ability) can edit them in. I'm sorry for the inconvenience. (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #283286 |
If there are tags that should just go away (like science-based; I forgot we didn't kill that yet), we can probably get a dev to do it directly at the database instead of editing it out one question at a time. Let us know if that's what you want. (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #283017 |
Also, in case it's helpful: you know that [notice you see on Meta if you're not logged in](https://scientific-speculation.codidact.com/uploads/XUrqn7ZfGqqtmrzXJiScRmAv)? If y'all want something like that here, we can do that -- just tell us what it should say. (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #283017 |
This is excellent. Perhaps much of it could be added to the help, either the FAQ or "how to ask" or a new topic about scope that you can then link from those places? (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #281858 |
I agree that speculation about history doesn't fit in with scientific speculation. (Maybe there are speculative history-of-science questions that would fit; haven't thought about it.) It looked like there might have been other objections (couldn't quite tell), but all of it made me realize I had a ... (more) |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #281854 | Initial revision | — | almost 3 years ago |
| Question | — |
Which sciences are welcome? A now-deleted question involved archaeology, linguistics, and history. There were some downvotes and critical comments, and the author deleted the question. I don't know whether the downvotes were because of the scope or for other reasons, but it sent me to the FAQ to see what we say about our scop... (more) |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #276617 | Nominated for promotion | — | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #279500 |
Hi Green! Welcome to Scientific Speculation! You have a [second account](https://scientific-speculation.codidact.com/users/6963), which was automatically created when some of your posts were imported. If (on this account, not that other one), you go to your profile and then to edit, you'll see dow... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #277255 |
Post edited: |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #277255 |
Post edited: creating tags; will revert |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #275820 |
Post edited: normalizing the tag name for network-wide consistency |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #275801 |
Post edited: normalizing the tag name for network-wide consistency |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #275820 |
Post edited: |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #216861 |
Post edited: localized links |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #213937 |
Post edited: localized links |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #213979 |
Post edited: localized links |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #216030 |
Post edited: localized links |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #275820 |
It's been a few days and "rigorous science" seems to have the most support. I think it's an improvement on what we've got now. Shall we change it? Also, please consider adding a help topic about what's expected for that category, and we can link to it from the category description. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #275787 |
When we work out what the expectations of this category are, it'd be great to create a help page explaining it (possibly drawn from meta posts) and link it in the category description. Moderators can create help topics and admins (hi) can edit the category description on request. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #275930 | Post edited | — | almost 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #275870 |
Post edited: minor adjustments to make this more clearly a science-based question |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #275771 |
Post edited: |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #275801 |
Post edited: |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #275771 |
Post edited: name change |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #275802 |
We're going to go with this; changes rolling out soon. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #275803 |
Creative Science is awfully close to Creation Science, a branch of Christianity if I understand correctly, which we don't want to be confused for. Scientific Creativity, while longer, doesn't have that challenge. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #275801 | Initial revision | — | almost 4 years ago |
| Question | — |
Is this the right name for the site? We try to hammer these things out during the proposal phase; really we do... but in the last day or two we've seen some objections to the name "Speculative Science", and if we're going to change it now is the time, so... do we want a different name for the site? One objection was that the current ... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #275796 | Initial revision | — | almost 4 years ago |
| Answer | — |
A: Do we want to keep the [science-based] and [reality-check] tags? I would think that, at the very least, [science-based] is implied by this site's scope and doesn't add anything. (I didn't think to ask for it to be stripped on import, but presumably it's not hard to kill.) On WB I believe the rule was that [science-based] shouldn't be the only tag on a question; ... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #275771 |
Post edited: |
— | almost 4 years ago |