- Sep 29, 2020
- 127
- 195
Thanks for the clarification, I didn't even notice that postcript until now...Does anyone know when he added that note about him being fine in the Ci-en November post? I saw someone reply that it was made in December, but that comment has been deleted.
Also, I’m not sure if it’s a Ci-en thing, but multiple comments have been getting deleted on the November post, even as recent as a few days ago. Could it be some moderation bot, or could it be NauNau?
Edit:
I just want to note as of now, there are 49 comments on the latest post, however this number has been fluctuating a lot recently, and a lot of comments are being deleted. IIRC, a lot of the comments that were deleted were the ones that weren’t outright supportive.
Interestingly enough, whilst the comment that states that the postscript was written in December was deleted, the comment that asks when it was written is still up.
For those curious, this was the note I was talking about, it was edited in the November post at some point:
※追記 ご心配かけて申し訳ありません、元気です!
About the comments: we could never know if Nau Nau is responsible for it or if it was due to a malfunction of the website, especially when the comment asking about the postscript is still up (I'm guessing the one you refer to is this one):
Let's keep checking daily to see further development.
On another note, I've been searching intensively on how to reveal the date of specific elements on a website, I figured that if a modification has been made in a website, it would be possible to find out the date and time it was made; unfortunately, the following findings might be very discouraging:
---> This is an abstarct of the source code of the website:
You must be registered to see the links
(the november article). I'm afraid this would mean that the modification of the article (the postcript) was made 10 hours later I also tried looking for a past version of the article, to see if the postcript was there say, in december, so I headed to the wayback machine website, but to no avail, the oldest (and only) version of the article was recorded in january 16th and the postcript was there by then...
Keep in mind, I don't know much about this stuff, so the "modification" date might refer to another change made to the article, unfortunately this is the only proof I found to be official... Either way, it seems the only thing we could do is to keep waiting and hoping for the best.