@amWhy I'm sorry you've had a stressful day :(

I think perhaps that emoticon was in poor taste. I actually meant that to be a quite serious statement.

@amWhy In response to your hello, HELLO!

...man. It seems like I missed a day of fun on meta.

@XanderHenderson 13 rep from the review queues

I know, gamification is evil :)

hrm?

oh

yes

I'm at 1987

I poked you elsewhere...

What do you mean?

you have replied... nevermind

in the realm of SBA

@DavidReed @David Reed It there's only one upvoted answer, that's not an impediment for deleting the question, as far as I know. If it were, you'd have to downvote otherwise proper answers relentlessly, of course. Btw, you aren't considering changing your user name to Darth Maul, are you?

@ProfessorVector Please be civil.

@user21820 Would you please be so kind to point out the exact part of my remark that was not civil?

This part: "Btw, you aren't considering changing your user name to Darth Maul, are you?"

It's off-topic to this room, and contains a hidden implication, and you know what I mean...

I know what you mean, but why is it off topic to say what you mean, and why is it not civil? We choose our paths, and I have to respect those choices, even if I would make others. It would be easier for me to respect them if I knew the person is aware of said choice.

@ProfessorVector If it was a joke, I would let it pass, but for the sake of not re-igniting the recent fire, please refrain from making such remarks, as they do nothing to contribute anything constructive.

The close/delete-team is by definition destructive, and as I said already, that's not necessarily a bad thing. But I'm to old to believe in "the ends justify the means" any more.

@ProfessorVector Which ends is the question "Btw, you aren't considering changing your user name to Darth Maul, are you?" achieving?

Which part of "It would be easier for me to respect them if I knew the person is aware of said choice" was unclear? As I said, I'd like persons to make their choices consciously, and a question may provoke thinking, wouldn't you say so? Especially if it's a provocative question. Btw, you mentioned civil: I could give you a few quotes out of this room I wouldn't exactly call civil. "Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi"?

@ProfessorVector The question was in reference to a question I myself had asked on Physics SE that had 1 close vote for being a duplicate (which in fact it was not)

I took no offense

another useless garbage answer by the Doctor math.stackexchange.com/a/2611025/66096

Hello @user21820, @DavidReed, @GabrielRomon, @etal. o/

Hello! How are you feeling this morning?

@DavidReed Pretty well. How about you?

Awful

Hi, @XanderHenderson, too!

@DavidReed why? Are you feeling ill?

No sleep, I had to drive over to my brother's apartment late last night to help emergency services with his violently intoxicated and suicidal boyfriend.

Galapagos in two days though!

@DavidReed Indeed! (Sorry you had to deal with all that last night!)

lol he just deleted it

does he secretly visit this room ?

@GabrielRomon I don't think so. Some comments under his "answer" weren't nice (but justified).

FYI, @quid, @user21820, @Did, @ZacharySelk, @SimplyBeautifulArt, @DanielFischer: Ongoing: chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71774/conversation/170039-martins

@user21820 They are still trying to get rid of her now :( At 4 close votes. I don't understand why people could possibly be so motivated to do such a thing to such a popular,meaninful, question that is not actually a duplicate.

@DavidReed Who is "she"? What close-votes?

Our question :)

@DavidReed Lol! In any case it's not a Math SE question, so technically not relevant here.

Since a user wants to talk behind my back, let's talk in front of everyone's faces.

This is totally false, and a clear instance of an error in basic logic.

I wrote in the referred post:

> In my opinion, the author of incorrect answers should, when an error is pointed out, delete their answer unless (or until) it is amended. If the author feels that the error is of value to the site, it is acceptable to edit the post to include a prominent notice right at the top that it is erroneous, and explain where the error is, correctly, and preferably explain how to fix or circumvent the error.

> I even go so far as to say that authors that sincerely attempt to answer the question will never leave an incorrect answer lying around without fixing or deleting it, once it has been pointed out. Hence when the error has been pointed out and yet the author refuses to fix it, then I am totally in favour of deleting it, since sincerity is indeed lacking.

Nowhere did I say that anyone needs to point out an error.

End of story.

@JyrkiLahtonen @DanielFischer: Besides the above, I also wish to note that George Chen (according to himself) got suspended from another SE site for what was stated to be white supremacism. It is almost surely valid, because he recently posted a number of objectionable posts and comments, such as recorded here, which have since been deleted (by moderators?).

Sorry I got that one wrong; those comments are not deleted. I mixed up with this one.

PSQ: lack of effort Has been closed, open for deletion.

Jeebus... that guy is toxic

The asker of this question is on another PSQ question spree today. At ~610 rep, she knows she is expected she needs to add appropriate context when asking a question. Today's four posts from her were all PSQ barring context. Evaluate as necessary, but this user won't change such behavior unless there are consequences, e.g. closure.

@amWhy That would be a case where I agree with you,,, in principle. Editing her question, just to kick her later... well, you don't argue about taste. What those OPs don't understand (but I think it's what you have in mind): we aren't sorcerers. We can answer their questions because we did our exercises, then, we didn't ask others to do them for us. You learn maths only by doing maths, not by watching it done. Do you agree?