@ArcticChar I can't think of any good context, nor do I like putting words into the mouth of the OP. Any delete voter can see the huge number of "Linked" posts in a single second glance at the sidebar.

@user1729 And please, it's never a good idea to play mind reader. Don't put words in my mouth. Own them as your own creation.

I think that post should be deleted, @MathStackExchange. The OP has not improved the question; don't put words in the askers mouth: they asked it, let them improve it. You can comment with ways to improve it, but this site is not about "let me do everything for you: ask your question for you, and answer it for you." So please do not "do for them" anything. I said suggestions are fine in the comments.

@user21820 I think it is not ready for "prime time math.se open posts". Also, I could improve it, but I will not put words in anothers' mouth. And DO NOT ask in CURED, in the future, for anyone to delete a silly answer to that post, because you reopened it. See you!

@ArcticChar Ah, thanks for explaining the lead-up to said deletion, and for sharing a bit about the closure/deletion processes, which are in fact still rather murky to me. And thanks for sharing that old meta discussion in which, yes, Mariano has more or less taken the words out of my mouth. -)

@XanderHenderson I'll just assume it was "word of mouth" that you caught wind of. That has happened for too many years. I'm glad you pause and question when such "complaints" are puzzling.

No problem. That was supposed to be wide open eyes and open mouth, from left to right!

@user21820 You are the saviour. That question was on the verge of being opened. Another user was trying his or her BEST to edit the question multiple times, heart-in-mouth stuff.

@XanderHenderson What an answerer will do to get what rep they claim they earned! Wouldn't it be a heck of a lot easier to simply answer better questions?? It is illegitimate to put works into an asker's mouth to save one's answers. reuns should have from the get go, asked the better question in a separate question after deletion of the poor question, and they gone ahead to answer. Please note that the answer was also improved after the posts deletion. I'm sick of the games this rep hounds play.

Which put words in the mouth of the asker: compare math.stackexchange.com/posts/4043247/revisions

@user64742: Well, I meant to say you can create a blog for yourself on any of the common platforms available. And then you can make mathse users aware of it by giving a link in your profile. Or you can advertise it via word of mouth in your circle.

@XanderHenderson Indeed again. Word of mouth from users "getting their homework done for them" to their peers, who likely also want to know where to "get their homework done for them...

I can think of so many hair trigger suspensions I've dished out with like 30 seconds of thought where some frothing-at-the-mouth new user has told off somebody asking them for context. But when it's a slow build where both parties are polite at first, then gradually piss each other off in a back-and-forth, it becomes a question of whether to suspend both or write it off as "allowing debate."

@XanderHenderson I'll take another look. I can't do anything yet tonight. Do you mean by rewriting it: posting a good, new question to that post? I do not condone editing posts to put words in the mouth of the asker.

@user1729: I had seen the deleted comment you mention. This is what is typically called "putting words into someone else's mouth" and should be avoided.

@XanderHenderson That one is.. err.. not even an attempt (by the asker) so it doesn't even count. Always leaves a bitter taste in my mouth, but I think you'd have to discuss more with the other moderators because I don't think they are in 100% agreement on the appropriateness of such edits.

@HarishChandraRajpoot: Your actions yesterday on the question Saad mentioned above (answering and putting words into the asker's mouth) is not in line with your words "now I try my best to avoid answering such PSQs". Please stop doing that. There are plenty of good questions that you can answer instead of lousy ones.

Some users recommend editing. Others recommend reposting. (There have been complaints that edits "put words into the OPs mouth". Again, some discussions can be found in this room.)

@XanderHenderson editing to add context places words in the askers mouth. If you add a reason the question was asked to a question and you did not have reasonable evidence that that was why the asker asked, then you lied. The same applies if you edit to add a “fabricated” attempt at the problem in the question.

@BillDubuque I did not say the author is a crank! I don't think so either! Don't put words in my mouth...

@darijgrinberg The attempt is put into the mouth of the asker by a user who answered the question, after he answered it.

@GabrielRomon: Please explain why you answered this plain PSQ after being told by the asker that it is homework, despite the asker not including any attempt whatsoever. Moreover, why did you edit the question to put words into the asker's mouth?

At the same time, this issue of putting-words-in-mouth is orthogonal to the issue of whether a question is bad. I want to see clear evidence of genuine effort by the asker or the motivation behind the question, and that for me is enough for a question not to be closed. In the absence of both, I think it is a bad question and should be closed.

@robjohn I will tell you my viewpoint, but you'd have to ask the others for theirs, because some have stricter criteria and some have looser criteria. I firmly believe in not putting words into anyone's mouth. This excludes correcting typos/grammar or obvious careless errors in answers, but includes the kind of edit that you made.

@AlexanderGruber I am pretty sure this was discussed on meta (an in chat) a few times. At least some users object to the fact that in this way the editor is putting words into the asker's mouth. I have posted a few links to related discussions in the Math Meta chatroom: chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/64952/2019/5/5

Putting words into asker's mouth

@BillDubuque Neither @Saad nor I agreed on any sort of compromise including putting words into asker's mouth.

@user334732 It was modified to put words into the asker's mouth. Check the history.

I didn't say that at all. Please don't put words into my mouth.

@BillDubuque What is there to say to words put in your mouth? Nothing really...

@RRL Finally, comments can be flagged and deleted, and have no bearing (as far as I am concerned) on the quality of the question itself. I would have been better if the asker didn't have a potty mouth, but I don't see it as relevant to the question.

I could probably edit the question to make it nice and intelligible, but that would be putting words in the OP's mouth a bit. Though I think the things that are missing are fairly obvious.

That being said, it might be a good idea to link to the original question and explain why you are asking a new question, e.g. "This question was closed for lack of context, but I think that it is an interesting question. Rather than put words into the mouth of another user, I am asking this question to provide additional context."

I believe that the advice in the past has been to open a new, better question, rather than to put words in the mouth of the original asker.

@CarlMummert Hmm. While I personally have no trouble discerning between sincere and insincere attempts, I can see why insincere attempts can just add unwanted noise, as you said. Anyway, I'm not so concerned with the change as I am with the intention behind the change. My main worry is that the changed close-reason might be used as an argument that a bad question can be made into a 'good' one just by putting lots of words into the asker's mouth. We have seen that happen many times already.

@quid Alright. I'm zipping my mouth ... err ... sitting on my typing fingers :)

I don't see that I am putting words in the OP's mouth. They gave most of a proof, and are asking where the error is. The tag description for proof-verification says "For questions concerning a specific proof or a specific solution, asking for verification, identifying errors, suggestions for improvement, etc. (You should not use this tag if the question does not contain your proposed proof/solution.)" (emphasis mine).

@XanderHenderson Let the OP take care of declaring intention; don't add what you do not know, that the OP has not declared. Just as I do not like answerers interpreting a question (perhaps differently from others, and never stated by the OP, to edit a post to put into the ops mouth what they meant), as you complained about above.

Nor do you address one of my greatest concerns about the posting and answering of bare problem statements: That the practice, perhaps inadvertently, but none the less, is damaging to the quality of this site, and reinforces users to return, with no better a question, expecting someone to prove, do, solve, evaluate, it for them. And word of mouth communicates "Come to MSE; they'll do your homework for you." Answering PSQs merely reinforces the increase in posting "do my work for me" questions.

I don't think it's a good thing if a an answerer edits a question as though it is being said in the first person by the asker, according to the answerer's own understanding. That's the asker's job. If an edit is to improve formatting, or add context an asker put in comments, that's great and I have no problems. But to put words in the mouth of an asker, that the asker never "spoke" (wrote), are tried to write, is not okay, and may even change the question from what was actually asked, @quid.

In any case, I'm in two minds about this. On the one hand I do want to stick to my principles and roll-back to the original asker's version (since the asker never even opened his/her mouth to respond to any of the commenters). On the other hand, Daniel and Xander don't seem to support that course of action right now. So does that mean I should close an eye this time? =)

@user21820 Trying to save a question is legitimate. It's in principle laudable. In this case there's the problem that the editor used the first person, but I don't find that so heinous. Still, it may be better to make the added context neutral, so that it doesn't put words into the OP's mouth.

So either put aside your angst towards me about that one question, and address me as a colleague, or else ignore me and do not put words in my mouth, such as you did just now, claiming I claimed that the question is poor because it's too simple, and claiming that I am responsible for a somewhere in the past closed question of yours.

it's either a fast food drive through or a communist food court or some utopia heaven where the you lie on the beach and the fruit grows right into your mouth. If people are fed the how is secondary.

...original asker's mouth?

I don't think anyone's put words in the asker's mouth. I edited it too, to improve. But I insist that the asker's bear the responsibility of improving their posts. That's not to say there aren't instances where others can do it for them. Next time, Xander, when you're fed up with a PSQ, from an asker who's asked a series of PSQ's previously, maybe I'll tell you: I'll edit the post so that it stays open, and maybe go back to reopen all their other posts to, after I fix them so they ...

@amWhy @AloizioMacedo Regarding 18: the question is 4 years old, and the original poster is likely gone for good. Is there any harm in putting words in the OPs mouth to make it better? If not, I suggest that someone go for it. Otherwise, I'm not sure that the question is that great, and I'm happy to see it remain deleted.

@SimplyBeautifulArt Yeah, pretty sad attempt to mimic swollen cheeks, but I hope thing are going well for you and your mouth?

put words in my mouth.

@NajibIdrissi To her defense, she tried to add some context. The added text was later removed by another user with a comment: Please don't put words in the mouth of the OP.