Timeline for Physical dimensions of the Planet Express building
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Oct 24, 2013 at 0:15 | history | suggested | Robotnik | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Inlined one of the images. Unfortunately the other is in .svg format which isn't supported. Also added reference to originals
|
| Oct 23, 2013 at 23:59 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Oct 24, 2013 at 0:15 | |||||
| Aug 10, 2013 at 22:23 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | ||
| Aug 10, 2013 at 3:15 | answer | added | James Sheridan | timeline score: 7 | |
| Aug 1, 2013 at 18:45 | comment | added | user16337 | And, by the way, the second image is NOT the "more detailed", it is "different". Structure of rooms is different. | |
| Aug 1, 2013 at 18:15 | comment | added | user16337 | This is a collaboratively edited site, I understand this idea and I like it. I know the rules and I really appreciate corrections of grammar or improving my question by clarifying something, or fixing my errors in any way, or improving formatting. But indeed there was "more than that though", and this is why I rolled PART of the changes back. | |
| Aug 1, 2013 at 13:45 | comment | added | acolyte | @JonathanHobbs the only thing i don't like about Bitmask's edit was the funky grammar of his opening line, and the use of "film" rather than "series". Otherwise, superior to the original question as far as readability, and did not change what was being asked at all. | |
| Aug 1, 2013 at 12:38 | comment | added | doppelgreener | That said, as the asker of your question, it is acceptable for you to object to edits that change your question in ways you're uncomfortable with, and I think it was fair to revert that particular edit. However I suggest you get used to the idea that people are going to edit your posts and change your phrasing here, or you're just going to experience a lot of friction with the community. This question itself is primarily going to be improved by changing the way it's written in small ways - not just through spelling or grammar corrections. The edit you rolled back did more than that though. | |
| Aug 1, 2013 at 12:35 | comment | added | doppelgreener | This is a collaboratively edited site. Sometimes, the phrasing of your post will be edited in order to clarify the meaning or intent of your question. Others, being used to this site being edited in this manner, will not always expect the question to be in exact words you would produce yourself. Remember that your question is here to be useful to others, and not just you, so others will act in the interests of improving the question to facilitate it actually getting good answers for the benefit of themselves and others. | |
| Jul 31, 2013 at 20:57 | comment | added | user16337 | I just do not like such rephrasing, no offence. For example, I would not say "more detailed cross secion, but it's still not precise enough.". Anyhow, it would be nice to get an answer. | |
| Jul 31, 2013 at 17:42 | comment | added | acolyte | why? The edits bitmask made did nothing to change the meaning or intent of the question. | |
| Jul 31, 2013 at 12:44 | history | edited | user16337 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 6 characters in body; edited tags
|
| Jul 31, 2013 at 12:44 | comment | added | user16337 | Corrections of grammar and logic are good, but please, do not change my words and structure of my sentences. Thanks. | |
| Jul 31, 2013 at 12:40 | history | rollback | user16337 |
Rollback to Revision 1
|
|
| Jul 31, 2013 at 12:33 | history | edited | bitmask | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 83 characters in body; edited tags; edited title
|
| Jul 31, 2013 at 9:32 | review | First posts | |||
| Jul 31, 2013 at 12:46 | |||||
| Jul 31, 2013 at 9:17 | history | asked | user16337 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |