« first day (5061 days earlier)      last day (20 days later) » 

3:39 AM
It turns out the "since" thing was a rendering issue on the phone with the larger green mathematical expressions in the edit history somehow moving the pink highlighting over a thing that had not been changed.

The issue for me on the phone post-edit was that expressions that I could read on one line now broke over three and I could no longer understand them "at a glance"; I'd need to write them out to even see what they were saying. I can manage on the desktop, though I need to shrink the text back down from the large size I have it at.
Oh, and I guess this would also signify that I've seen your comment.
hey
Thanks @Glen_b for being generous enough. Appreciate your reply.
Apologize again for the inconvenience caused. My intention was nit malicious, just to be on the safe side.
I certainly appreciate that you took the trouble to fix my work, albeit I decided to change it back for now.
At the end of the day, it's your post. You have full right to roll any edit back by a third user, if you feel it hampers the quality and readability.
I didn't for a moment think that your motivations were anything but correct.
... and well meant.
Speaking of edits, it's quite vexing when someone provides a paper link without citing it explicitly. Decades later, the link is gone. And the answer is useless.
3:46 AM
yeah, I fixed one of my own commissions of that particular sin just yesterday
😅
@Glen_b anyways best wishes for the day ahead. It's late here.
Thanks, same to you. Bye
 
4 hours later…
8:05 AM
@User1865345 Let's hope that DOIs at least will endure.
 
6 hours later…
1:43 PM
@User1865345 Link-only answers routinely are moved into comments, albeit often after some encouragement to have the poster amplify their answer. In the present case the answer was from the very earliest days of this site before we had worked out many of our policies and so it got overlooked. Now, 14 years later, I have converted it into the comment it always should have been ;-).
2:03 PM
@whuber thanks whuber. Problem is you had asked the author, albeit not directly, about the same and much to dismay, they somewhat responded in an ambivalent way. In any case, even the comment is useless as the link is dead.
@StephanKolassa I agree, Stephan, of using doi as they can withstand the vagaries of time. The least one can do is to provide the title, author's name, identifier, journal name etc, so that it might be identified at a later time. In the present case, the author only indicated it was their paper yet to be published and provided a link that was never archived.
@User1865345 Right. So, for many years now, I have developed a system for following up on my requests for clarification. If there is no constructive response after 24 hours, and I feel that clarification is essential to avoid confusion or error, then I will act on the post (closing it, converting it to a comment, or--very rarely--deleting it). This monitoring is a pain and takes a lot of time, but it's effective.
2
That's a robust plan, indeed, whuber.
Considering the reputation, I assume the user was experienced but cannot blame fully as it seems, as whuber pointed, there were no specific rules in place yet.
Btw, since you are here @whuber, would be grateful if you do me a favor.
Could you tell me when it is appropriate to use display mode for the expressions so that problems like Glen_b experienced can be averted?
It would be helpful for me to know that since a part of my contribution involves editing posts including typesetting.
@Galen read wikipedia with a pinch of salt 😅
@User1865345 lol
2:38 PM
@User1865345 I don't know, because I find it so cumbersome to access this site on a phone that I don't do it. I have always formatted my posts for readability on a computer screen.
3:05 PM
I see. Thanks anyways.

« first day (5061 days earlier)      last day (20 days later) »