Timeline for Migrating a question which is already posted on the other site
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 6, 2013 at 7:21 | comment | added | user9072 | @MarkSapir: then don't. you can then reask it to get the same information from somebody else. | |
| Aug 6, 2013 at 7:18 | comment | added | user6976 | Daniel's suggestion is very good! @quid: As usual too many letters and symbols like "[,]"in your answer prevents me from reading it to the end. Can you try being more laconic? What's your point? | |
| Aug 6, 2013 at 6:59 | comment | added | user9072 | @MichaelHardy What was not sufficient about the comment I quoted? Clearly the person making it was aware of the question already being on math.SE. (It is reasonable you might have missed it, but still it was made.) | |
| Aug 6, 2013 at 6:54 | comment | added | user9072 | Third, it sends the completely wrong message. In my opinion, people already think way to much in terms of their questions and their answers. It would be more in line, in my opinion, with the spirit of the site, if people would think more of post they contributed (as opposed to their posts). While I am not active on Wikipedia, I still think it could be helpful to think of making a contribution there as the closer analogous activity to posting something here (as opposed to writing a paper; although this is really not the only problem with the journal analogy). | |
| Aug 6, 2013 at 6:49 | comment | added | user9072 | re 1: I can imagine why somebody thinks this would be better, I however feel that first this does not warrant the complication (and I am yet to await a moderately convincing argument why there is that much issue with the "repost" [I think meanwhile we have agreement one can see it like this] for which we have permssion [also here it seems in the end there was agreement with this], albeit not explicit approval; both the wallet and the journal analogy given are non-analogies). Second, did anybody actually complain based on reasons somewhat along the 'ethical problems' line (M.H. not, it seems) | |
| Aug 6, 2013 at 6:44 | comment | added | user9072 | re 2: This seems almost as it is now. People on the target site can close the question (as any other question). If it is closed on target site (except for duplicate-closure), it becomes off-topic closed on source site. Depending on what you mean precisely by 'move to the review queue' it is still closer. (What I mean for allmost all the review queues the post is anyway already on the site while being "under review"; an exception, and I think the only one is 'approved edits'). So, this seems like a complication for little gain. | |
| Aug 6, 2013 at 3:53 | comment | added | Michael Hardy | In this case just some explanation would have helped. It looked as if someone was putting the question where it already was and ignoring the opening statement that it was already there. | |
| Aug 6, 2013 at 2:57 | history | answered | Daniel Moskovich | CC BY-SA 3.0 |