Timeline for Is royal genealogy on- or off-topic? (Country irrelevant)
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 14, 2015 at 0:12 | comment | added | Jan Murphy Mod | I too would consider myself a hardliner on the question of DYOH. We all have our own research to do, and the time we spend attempting to answer questions here takes away time from doing our own work. (It doesn't pertain to this question, but I find it particularly annoying when I see someone whining that they tried everything in the answers already -- if they can't be bothered to write up what they've already tried, why should they expect others to do the work?) | |
| May 13, 2015 at 21:52 | comment | added | PolyGeo Mod | Another place to vote is meta.genealogy.stackexchange.com/a/1424 | |
| May 13, 2015 at 19:10 | comment | added | user104 | And yes, I'd exclude Royal genealogy explicitly (I included it implicitly when I framed the answer "Genealogy of Royalty, Celebrities and other Famous People" to meta.genealogy.stackexchange.com/questions/1418/…, although there didn't seem to be a consensus then. | |
| May 13, 2015 at 19:04 | comment | added | user104 | Agree re DYOH. (But then, I'm probably known as a hardliner on the subject :) | |
| May 13, 2015 at 19:01 | history | answered | CRSouserMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |