4:31 PM
Is it ever okay, \\ \\ after spending time, say inserting an image into a posted question that merely provided a link to it, and spending a little time trying to transcribe the question of interest to the OP, then asking the OP to edit, into the post itself, the rest of the image (fyi image of tiny poorly lit scan of a multistep problem), then, based on OP's lack of response to a long list of users trying to help \\ \\ to roll-back one's edit to the original post?
The relevant question is now on hold, and I admit that the OP pissed me off, and I am willing to edit the question (insert image), in, say, 2days, so that my good intentions and the quality of the post can be restored.

4:51 PM
Another strange thing about the post @amWhy is talking about is that amWhy's edit should have put it into reopen review queue. (That's what the first edit after putting on hold does.)
Yet I see the question neither in the reopen review nor in the reopen review history.
Oh, I see, This is an exception: "Edited (body edits only) within 5 days of closure by a 3rd-party, provided the editor has not also flagged the question or voted to close it."
So amWhy's edit does not put it into reopen review queue (because of the close vote). But if some other users (e.g., me or the OP) edits the post, it will push it into reopen review queue.
Ok, so that's not strange now. It seems that quite often I ask a question in chat and then answer it myself.

5:31 PM
@Martin I'm quite sure I voted to close the question. Perhaps I roll-backed edits prior to voting to close. I did not flag it.

5:52 PM
@MartinSleziak Oh, I fully get it now! Extra good to know for the future!
Well, dear @quid, how are you? Feel free to answer my question above, if you have anything to say?!

@amWhy: Did you say that quid is a deer?

Well, perhaps?

I think so.

Well, on his behalf, Dear @Asaf, how are you? (my good wishes distribute over many users (BUT NOT ALL!). Consider yourself lucky!)

@amWhy Mainly hungry. So... see you later.

6:52 PM
@amWhy Dear amWhy, it seems to me I am in a state close to the one of our dear colleague and fellow user Asaf. Unfortunately, I cannot leave just yet, as I need to write one or two or n more emails. Indeed, your recollection is perfectly accurate; Matt E. was one of the main proponents of this style. Also 'signing' was popular like, so: Regards, quid
On the question: I can see it being okay in some contexts, but usually I would avoid it.

1 hour later…
8:13 PM
@quid You are also trying to write a summary of your research into a two pages document?

@AsafKaragila My research into usage of greetings and salutations on math.SE and MO? Actually I just meant I was hungry (incidentally still am).

@quid Ah. Well, that's a shame. Being hungry is no fun.
Also writing your research in just two pages is no fun, though.

Then it should be still worse if one were done after the first page!

@quid I could write my research in one page, that's easy. You just give a very vague picture. I could also write it in four, as I have recently. But writing in two pages means omitting all technical terms, and yet giving more than just the broadest strokes possible.

I see. Good luck! I'll try to write those emails now, before I starve completely.

8:29 PM
@quid Probably a good idea.

8:52 PM
@Asaf How about writing your research on two pages (taking your four pages and writing them onto two pieces of $9"\times 26"$ paper?
I know, it's a sappy answer...how about going from 12 pt font to 6?

9:11 PM
@amWhy Well, for one thing, the four pages summary is meant for set theorists; not a committee deciding which postdoctoral candidates pass the screening(s).

@Asaf I'm sorry; I didn't mean, in any respect, to minimize the importance of your task. I get it. Nor was I trying to make "fun of it". Just trying make you smile, or smirk, or notice how corny my comments were, and laugh at that.

9:35 PM
@amWhy None taken, don't worry about it.