 | | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian —Mark Papenfuss
|
| | | (...) if/when? Does Lugnet not view editing the FUT editing? This is widley done by the Admins. I thought if you changed anything about a post than you were editing it. Am I wrong in this assumption? M (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general) !
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian —Mark Papenfuss
|
| | | | (...) I would actually like an aswer to this. I would like to know what is and what is not considered 'editing' by the Lugnet Admin team. M (20 years ago, 4-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | (...) Well I dunno about any other editing, but I don't consider changing the FUT as editing, as it is only a suggestion anyway. All they are changing is where they'd like followups to go - you are still free to override that. And NNTP admins have (...) (20 years ago, 4-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian — Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) This hasn't been discussed on the list, and I'm sure there are probably a variety of opinions, but I'll offer mine. Overriding the FUT of an article alters the article's metadata item known as the "Followup-To" header. While this is not part (...) (20 years ago, 4-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian —Mark Papenfuss
|
| | | | (...) Yes, it did. Thank you for taking the time. M (20 years ago, 4-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
