Five dollars says that this is going to be edited and undeleted in a few minutes so that someone can get "FROST PIST!" er... "FIRST POST!"

@XanderHenderson I like "FROST PIST"!! Maybe Isham has been learning from gimusi. : /

@amWhy Now you are making me feel old... or perhaps you simply did not frequent Slashdot in the late 90s / early 00s?

called it

the answer has been undeleted

@XanderHenderson ...and deleted again. I was just about to post the comment, "Don't post to get "first answer" status, delete it, and then 33 minutes later, post an answer to the question."

Now I edited their deleted post to write: "Please don't undelete me again unless you finally, 45 minutes or more later, have an answer."

@XanderHenderson How'd I do that? No, I don't remember Slashdot. I just like your "Frost Pist"! (first post)!

On Slashdot, there was a particular kind of troll that sought to get the first post on every story.

It evolved into a "FROST PIST!" meme

(or, perhaps just as commonly, "FROST POST!")

but that ended when Slashdot stopped listing posts by order within a story

like, a decade ago (at least)

er... @amWhy (after an hour, it was silly not not ping...)

My post to you came 24 minutes after your joke/reference to "Frost Post." I'm sorry If pinging you too late about it upset you. I'm not entirely clear what you were trying to say in your last comment. So I'm not in a position to respond to your last comment.

duplicates meta I have closed 28186: Why can't everyone see down votes? as a duplicate of 9659: Why can only established users view vote counts?. Does that seem reasonable? (Since this was closed by a single vote and it does not go through the review queue, I thought that at least mentioning it here so that somebody double checks the the closure could be reasonable.)

The question is now older than 14 days, so it is no longer shown in the community bulletin. (So this is no influenced by the closure.)

merging meta The newer post gained more attention (about twice as many views) and also more votes. So maybe it would also make sense to close in the opposite direction. But in such case we would have to ask moderators to merge the two questions, the answer is moved to version of the question which is not closed.

@amWhy I just forgot to ping you, that's all. I generally figure that if I am replying to the last thing in the chat, then a ping is not really needed, but if a lot of time has passed, it makes sense to ping someone. I never take offense to being pinged---it takes no skin offa my nose.

@MartinSleziak I think that is reasonable. The question was indeed a duplicate, and it had already been addressed elsewhere (even though not satisfactorily imho, but that wouldn't happen anyway I guess, at least not due to a math meta post).

It is a shame, though, that this stays like this. I think it is a feature that should be available to everyone, given the fact that one can infer the quality of an answer more appropriately if they know the upvote AND downvote count. Gamifying that makes no sense.

@AloizioMacedo Just to clarify, the answer to the other question was posted very recently. (Only after the newer question was posted, that might have been the reason why the older one got some attention again, was bumped and then was answered.)

This is part of the reason why I asked about reverting the direction.

@AloizioMacedo It's not the same as if it was implemented directly in the site functionality but still:

@MartinSleziak So I feel I should clarify as well : P. When I said "elsewhere", I intended to mean the wide range of links and references that were posted under the chronologically last question. So the fact that the other question was answered recently does not affect my opinion that your closure was reasonable (and I was aware that it was answered recently).

In fact, the answer by Najib seems the most honest (besides the answer by Jeff in that post, which the answer by Najib basically elaborates on), accurate and implicitly critical of the issue (I was not referring to his when I said the issue was not "addressed satisfactorily". Unfortunately, the issue is exactly as Najib describes).

@XanderHenderson BTW I have marked the offensive flag as invalid. (We will see what other people reviewing the flag do.) In the case the message is deleted, it refers to this series of edits. I believe it is the same post which you mentioned in the Mods' Office.

In case it was unclear, I meant chat flag of Xander Henderson's message.

This PSQ was on the HNQ.

@user21820 BTW I am not sure whether computational-mathematics is really a reasonable fit for that question. I do not think the OP is interested in numerical calculations or something like that.

Still, I rolled back my edit after I saw that the tag was added by a rather experienced user...

@MartinSleziak Hmmm I added that tag because the question explicitly asks for computing the limit. I do not consider ε-δ analysis as capable of computing limits. It can presumably be used to prove but not find limits. The "computational mathematics" tag includes "symbolic mathematics", so I think it's fine.

Well the epsilon-delta tag limit (and mentioning $\varepsilon$-$\delta$ definition in the question) is usually mentioned where the OP is after proof that the limit equals some number directly from the definition. (As opposed to showing this using some know theorems about limits.)

@MartinSleziak John Ma has removed the tag again, so never mind. But what I said stands, and you can see Meni Rosenfeld mentioned the same thing.

I think that removal of the tag leads to something which is closer to what the OP intended to ask. But both the OP and me should be very careful about formulation and semantics when we encounter somebody who studies logic :-)

The question is now closed: revisions/timeline.

@MartinSleziak Sure I understand. Thanks!

@MartinSleziak I'm hesitant about merging. Chappers' answer and hamid kamali's hint are what Iuli did here, so those answers would look out of place after a merge.

Just to clarify for others who might be unaware of what Daniel Fischer is talking about.

duplicates I voted to close 1609994: Limit $\lim_{x \rightarrow \infty} (\sin {\sqrt{1+x}} - \sin {\sqrt{x}})$ 1310875: Evaluate $\lim\limits_{x\to\infty}(\sin\sqrt{x+1}-\sin\sqrt{x})$ as duplicates of 394899: Limit $\lim_{x \to \infty}{\sin{\sqrt{x+1}}-\sin{\sqrt{x}}}$

There might be more copies of the same question. I have tried to choose the one which is least likely to be close for lack of context as the duplicate target.

merge I have also flagged for merging 1310875: Evaluate $\lim\limits_{x\to\infty}(\sin\sqrt{x+1}-\sin\sqrt{x})$ into 394899: Limit $\lim_{x \to \infty}{\sin{\sqrt{x+1}}-\sin{\sqrt{x}}}$

The former has some nice answer, especially the one by Jack D'Aurizio looks interesting. (And I do not see an answer with similar technique on the latter.)

@DanielFischer That sounds like a fair assessment. (Thanks for the response!) As I said above I suggested merging since I found those answer interesting and I though they might be more visible on the thread which is not close. I will at least add a link to the other question in the comments.

And now that I've noticed it, GEdgar's comment essentially gives the same approach as Jack D'Aurizio's answer. (Still, posted as an answer it is more visible.)

Maybe discussions about mergers, since they require mod action, or which of three similar questions should be the dupe target, should take place in the mod office chat? Asking about closing or not, a question as a dupe of another, is certainly on topic here. But whether to merge this question with that question as dupes of either this question or the other, stretches the purpose of this room, and then discussion about whether to have a mod merge two, or more, such related questions into one,

...I believe, goes beyond the point/purpose of this chatroom.

When I ask here about duplicates or merging, what I expect is feedback from other users who visit the room. And depending on feedback I get then I proceed to flag the question (or not). So the way I see it in falls under the topic in this room. (It is closely related to closing as duplicates.)

This particular case was a bit different.

I did not ask for feedback here first, since the posts seemed a clear-cut duplicates to me. But since then Daniel Fischer responded to my flag in this room, explanation what he is talking about seemed to me the polite thing to do. (So that other users are know what this is actually about.)

If you look at my past messages about this (which can be found easily if you search for merge or merging)‌​, probably you can see there that in many cases the duplicate closure was discussed at the same time.

I agree that checking out with others whether question 02468 should be closed as a dupe of question 13579, certainly belongs here, as does consulting other users as to whether to suggest a merger. But this site's scope doesn't really extend into, "but given [this], and [the other] and [yet another duplicate], and possible a [candidate duplicate], Where [the other] has been the target for two closed duplicate question, and all other dupes closed already, should we merge one or more of them?

Moreover, even if merging requires mods' action, if the suggestion is also posted here then the moderator who handles the flag can see what other users of this room said about the suggestion to merge. (At least if there was some feedback in the room)

@amWhy By "this site's scope" you mean "this room's scope"?

We've left the discussion about closure. CRUDE does not include an M for merger or an DM for "don't merge.".

Well, then maybe we could include the M?

@MartinSleziak Oh, yes, indeed. I'm speaking of this chatroom.

Although the acronym sounds better the way it is now.

@MartinSleziak Hmmm... So we become "CRUDEM"? :-)

In the past I have asked here many questions of the type "should these two posts be merged"? So even if this is not explicitly listed in the room topics, it is definitely one of the ways the room was used in the past.

Although, as I said, more often it was combination of: "Should these two question be closed as duplicates? Which one is better duplicate target? Should they be merged?"

And much less often I have asked about merging after they were already closed. (As I said, in this specific case I simply reacted to Daniel Fischer's message and I wanted others to know what question he is talking about.)

The suggestion to change the room name was not meant really seriously. Discussions about merging are probably too rare for that to be needed.

But I would be glad if I am allowed to ask about them here. (I think that in this room there is better chance to get some feedback on such thing, since it is visited by more users.)

I'm not complaining about the occasional such question, when looking for such feedback. I've just been finding it difficult to determine where the discussion about which posts/duplicates of concern are being addressed in comments. You begin by talking about dupes on meta, and before I even realize any transition, your asking about duplicates of MSE questions. (I was joking too, about CRUDEM!)

@Martin, certainly you may ask them here. I simply happen to find it difficult to know whom you are addressing/responding to,

I'll try to make this more clear in the future. Probably I should have posted this one as a reply to Daniel Fischer's message to make obvious that this is what I am responding to.

@amWhy Crumed would be more pronounceable, I think ;-) Concerning the question whether discussion of (possible) merges is/should be on topic here, I believe it's close enough to (dupe) closure that it isn't much of a stretch, and input by a couple of the experienced users frequenting this room is appreciated when the case is not clear-cut. So I'd be in favour of having it on-topic here.

It seems that we two often have problems understanding each other. it's almost as if we were from two completely different continents. :-)

@DanielFischer Kind of sounds like a verb: To Crume, or "being crumed by..". That might call for an additional tag on meta, <Crumed> for questions under the umbrella: "Why have I been Crumed?" (Why my post closed, please reopen it, and if deleted, please undelete it, and why was my answer merged to a different question?) Any one or all of the above. :P

This is the MUD ROOM: Merge, Undelete / Delete, Reopen / Opposite of reOpen, Make some changes.

@XanderHenderson heh!

IT ISN'T EVEN A LITTLE BIT AWKWARD, AS IS INDICATED BY MY SHOUTING!

Xander won the thread in one.

Before the acronym, the name of the room used to be Jury Duty.

@MartinSleziak I really do like that name, @Martin.

Admittedly, such room name might also have some negative connotations.

Actually I am a bit confused now. I see this room mentioned in the main chat on January 7 2012. But the first message in the room is from January 11 2012. So did it go for the first few days without anybody (including the room creator) posting anything?

I mean, CRUDE, sounds like -- well -- Crude. So references Like " "the folks in CRUDE" are to blame for everyone's misery" may subconsciously lead to negative opiniions of the chat, based on the distaste most have for whatever is named or labeled "CRUDE".

@MartinSleziak Essentially my thoughts, clearly, too.

@MartinSleziak So you were present even on the first day of posting in the chatroom? Impressive, really!

Why does the OP of this "question" continue to operate given the weight of so many poor questions, like this?

@MartinSleziak Shhhh... Not ready to come out of the closet as an alien! :-)

@user21820, @Did, @ZacharySelk, @XanderHenderson, @all This answer is open for deletion. One more delete vote needed.

@amWhy I disagree strongly with the deletion of that answer. It doesn't fit any of the bullet points here: math.stackexchange.com/help/deleted-answers.

I understand the downvotes, but disagree with the deletion.

Thank you for your input, @Aloizio!

For what it's worth, the other answer is also incomplete for that matter, although clearly more elaborate (not in the sense of "not saying that it is in 'standard calculus'" etc etc, but in failing to acknowledge that there are other ways to make sense of the derivative at $\infty$, and even considering the case where $f$ takes $\infty$ to $\infty$.)

Imho, both users should 'swallow the pride' and improve their answers (even though one is "better" than the other), but none should be deleted.

I saw the question in the chat earlier. Since I had a bad experience about treating answers which I deem misleading, I decided not to weigh in on the comments there. But I think deletion is clearly over the top and inappropriate.

Very well, as I said, @AloizioMacedo, thanks for your input. Note that I simply informed users here that a particular answer is open for deletion. I did not encourage such deletion, nor did I advocate for that here. It is only you lobbying for folks to act in a way that agrees with your interpretation, which I too can respect. You need also to respect the interpretations and perspectives of others as well.

@amWhy I do respect. I am just explaining my position, not "lobbying" since I think just stating "I disagree" is not a very useful input in a controversial case like this.

@AloizioMacedo Great! We'll likely need to agree to disagree on this particular answer. Every perspective is helpful. So thanks for honestly sharing your position.

@amWhy That's ok! : )

Ah, one last thing though, but not related to that answer.

Or rather, not related to the merits of that answer.

@AloizioMacedo Sure, go on....

I think, regardless of disagreement, that it is very rude and inappropriate to refer to someone (no matter who, and no matter what they have done) by asking "what the f*** is this person's malfunction?!". I made a flag regarding that comment, and Martin considered the flag "invalid", and apparently other users as well. This is not an online chat (even if it were), and the persistence of that comment here disturbs me on what is allowed for people to say about others.

Again, the number 1 rule should be "Be nice." There is no conditioning there: it is not saying "Be nice to whoever is right" or even "Be nice to who is nice to you".

@AloizioMacedo I agree that users here need to be more respectful to other users, and not say what they would never want to hear spoken to or about them. Poor decision, here, of course. I agree with your assessment of the comment you refer to.

@AloizioMacedo I certainly agree that @XanderHenderson could have expressed this a bit differently. But since the dirty word was "bleeped" I did not think it was bad enough. (In any case, flagging in chat is kind of a roulette - the results depends a lot on who reviews the flag. And for chat flags the results is much less consistent than for comment flags on the main site, which are handled by mods.)

It was probably bad luck that I was here when the post was flagged. (And I have rather low threshold on when I validate flags in chat, since I have seen a fair share of spam/offensive chat flags which were far from it.)

@MartinSleziak The "dirty word" is almost an expletive. "Malfunction" is just as offensive (or worse). The combination of both is simply unacceptable, and I don't appreciate your euphemism in this case.

I am not sure which euphemism you refer to, but never mind.

"could have expressed this a bit differently"

Fair enough, also I would not call that en euphemism, merely statement of a fact. (But not being a native English speaker, far be it for me to judge such fine points.)

I'd guess you agree that what Xander wanted to say could be expressed in a different way, don't you?

That's all I was trying to say, maybe my choice of words was rather poor.

How many users are actually needed to invalidate a chat flag?

In a rhetorical sense, yes, I agree that he could have expressed himself in a different way. The point is that he should have expressed himself a lot differently. Also, he shouldn't make any reference to a person's (alleged) lack of "cognitive capabilities" at all (differently or not), for dramatical effect, joke, or otherwise.

Ok, as I said I am not a native English speaker. Combine that with the fact that in chat it is good to type fast (as not to waste too much time of others waiting for the reply) and my choice of the words is usually not optimal.

In any case, let's hope Xander Henderson sees your message, since they are related to his message.

Still, I would be curious to know how many people have to mark flag as invalid. This is not clear to me after reading this entry on meta: How should I handle chat flags?

To be honest, I didn't even know that flags in chat worked differently (and don't even know now how exactly they work), so I'd want an answer for that as well : ).

@AloizioMacedo I've posted our questions about chat flags into another room - which is probably more suitable for such questions. So that we can leave this room to the purpose it is intended for.

@MartinSleziak Thanks!

@AloizioMacedo I am sorry that the comment offended you, but I think that you are reading way too much into the phrase "malfunction." It is quite clear that the particular user being referenced suffers from some defect which renders them unable to interact in a civil manner when they are criticized (whether, as you assume it is a cognitive defect; or as I assume, a simple lack of interpersonal skills or a problem understanding English (explaining the fixation on "derive" vs "differentiate").

@amWhy Thanks all, @Did, @Zachary, and all the close voters, the answer is not deleted.

There may also be an issue of age, here: as child of the 80s, the phrase "What is your major malfunction?" (popularized by the film Full Metal Jacket) holds certain cultural relevance for me, and connotes no particular defect (i.e. it is not indicative of an assumed mental disability or illness). Instead, it is roughly synonymous with "What is your problem?"

I note, @AloizioMacedo, that you are significantly younger than I---has the language shifted from my generation to yours? Is there a change in connotation that I should be aware of?

@amWhy s/not/now/ ?

@XanderHenderson That makes sense. I did not take your comment to be disrespectful or mean-spirited; I just also noted that I could understand how a non-native English speaker may take the comment literally.

@XanderHenderson Argh!!! the "not" in my comment should be "now"!! Sometimes my fingers take over!!!

I hate how short the span of time within which we can correct errors in a message!!