« first day (2618 days earlier)      last day (2173 days later) » 

Saad
Saad
02:10
For deletion: d1, d2
user21820
user21820
02:21
@BillDubuque You're making yet another false accusation that I was trying to silently undermine your 'attempts at organization'. If I wanted to do that, I wouldn't post it here. In fact, I didn't ping you because: (1) your comment was now irrelevant; you already found a good duplicate target but intentionally closed it the other way; (2) you were concerned with the potential deletion of the duplicate target, and I asked for a reopening, not deletion.
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
@user21820 (1) I explained many times why I don't think it is a good dupe target so why do you continue to misrepresent me? (2) My concerns had little to do with "potential deletion". Rather they had to do with the more important pedagogical issues I mentioned above. Your actions were "silent" to me. I would never had known if I had not stumbled upon them here. I had even left a comment there in case anyone wished to discuss. You could have pinged me there
user21820
user21820
@BillDubuque I didn't intentionally misrepresent you. What I wrote above in (1) and (2) are the reasons I had for not pinging you. Whether or not you disagree, those were my reasons. I am sure that the majority of users who care about site quality would interpret "good duplicate target" in the same way I did, so I don't think it's fair to blame me if you didn't convey your intention clearly enough.
2
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
There is a disconnect somewhere. You think that I found a good dupe target but I never did. And I have no idea what the point of (2) is but it has nothing to do wth anything I ever said.
user21820
user21820
@BillDubuque In your comment itself, you complained about potential deletion. Why do that if your concern has little to do with it? I asked for reopening and I see no reason I shouldn't. I really don't understand your motives or reasons, and am quite tired due to this back and forth.
If you were not referring to potential deletion, then sorry it wasn't clear to me from your comment.
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
@user21820 Please link to what you refer to.
user21820
user21820
02:36
11 hours ago, by user21820
@BillDubuque You said in a comment "Normally I'd close this as a dupe, but some folks keep deleting the prior versions so there are no dupe targets! If someone manages to find a good target please ping me.". I thought it strange that when you yourself found a good target, you didn't close it as dupe as per your comment, but rather closed it the other way around.
10 hours ago, by Bill Dubuque
Maybe some context will help you better understand. I put a lot of effort into organizing ENT, linking related questions, generalization, specializations, etc, I have very long TODO list, which includes concepts on this topic. When you keep deleting these questions (based on "quality" of the question) it completely messes up the link graph I am building. Often I have to restart from scratch, e.g. this new question may end up as an abstract dupe target until I can find another one.
In these two cited comments, you explicitly mentioned potential deletion.
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
It appears you are wrongly reading between the lines. I mentioned the prior deletions there only because they are what prevented me from having a good dupe target.
user21820
user21820
Alright. I'll try to become a better between-line reader, and I hope on your part you become a less-between-line writer. Maybe that will avoid future misunderstandings.
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
I don't understand why you keep asserting that I found a good dupe target when I keep complaining that you are deleting all of them! Am I not complaining loudly enough?
user21820
user21820
@BillDubuque As I said just now, that was what I thought would be considered a good duplicate target by the community. It didn't occur to me that you were not referring to (what I believe to be) community consensus. (You too have been misunderstanding me.)
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
@user21820 Re-read what you wrote - it was not at all clear. Further, that you think it is a good dupe target does not mean that the "community" does. That is quite presumptuous.
user21820
user21820
02:48
@BillDubuque You are quite presumptuous. I said "what I believe to be". I did not assume it was.
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
@user21820 I think the heart of the matter above is that there has been so little discussion between those on the opposite ends of the spectrum that there are many false presumptions made by both sides about what motivates the other side, etc.
user21820
user21820
03:53
@RRL @Saad: Rubbish from the same user as this. CC @XanderHenderson
D1, D2, D3.
D4, D5, D6.
D7, D8, D9.
D10, D11, D12.
D13, D14, D15.
 
1 hour later…
Saad
Saad
04:56
@user21820 Well, I have to earn some 200 rep to delete an answer.
@user21820 D1 to D14 are all gone. Actually D15 should be C1.
user21820
user21820
05:42
@Saad Oops. Thanks!
 
4 hours later…
Martin R
Martin R
09:50
What do you think about Supremum of $a^{ab}+b^{bc}+c^{cd}+d^{da}$ with $a+b+c+d=4$? OP makes a conjecture which is backed by “intuition” only, not by any arguments. Is that enough context to make the question on-topic?
 
1 hour later…
Saad
Saad
11:14
@MartinR I think that's not enough because there's no sign that the user has used any established results to back it, or in other words, no genuine try for a proof.
 
3 hours later…
rschwieb
rschwieb
13:54
@MartinR For me this is a grey area where I try to ask a probing question in the comments, or default to 'no action'.
@BillDubuque With regards to this yet-unanswered request for information about compromises, I'll assume it is somehow difficult for you to retroactively gather this. I would like to kindly request that the next time the situation you characterize as "unwillingness to compromise" arises, please capture the two sides and the compromise offered. Noting data like this might help clarify and resolve the problems. Thanks.
2
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
@rschwieb There are examples discussed not far above. The request is simple, in the rare cases that some respected members of this site reverse some action here then please let it be. It's that simple.
rschwieb
rschwieb
14:21
@BillDubuque So this apparently says "the compromise" being referred to was "non-respected (or is it lesser-respected?) users should let respected users have their way." Seeing as it doesn't actually involve any real compromise, I think it would probably be better to stop referring to it in such terms.
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
@rschwieb SInce you don't seem to be sincerely interested in discussing this then I see no point in continuing.
rschwieb
rschwieb
It could be a compromise in a new system, I suppose, but such a setup would require a caste system, rep-based or otherwise, and that is fairly abhorrent in an open source project like this.
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
@rschwieb Forget the word "respected" then (it was only meant to distinguish between genuine pedagogical concerns vs. game-palying concerns)
rschwieb
rschwieb
@BillDubuque Really now, I have spent a long time sincerely considering your input about "lack of compromise" with ample assumption of good faith. I really thought there might be a good chance of facts backing up the claim, but you mustn't blame me if they weren't forthcoming.
Again: I haven't rejected your complaint about compromise yet, even. Maybe we will come across it again int he future with more specifics supplied.
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
@rschwieb I have no idea what you are trying to say above.
rschwieb
rschwieb
14:27
I certainly don't want us to foster "lack of compromise" so we are in the same boat, I hope.
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
Again, for the record, this is the simple request for compromise.
rschwieb
rschwieb
@BillDubuque Is it simple? How do we determine which users are supposed to have their actions left alone by some other users? It seems pretty amorphous to me.
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
@rschwieb However you like, but hopefully intelligently.
rschwieb
rschwieb
@BillDubuque Well, presumably you, the person making the suggestion, are supposed to provide the criteria. Others have perhaps been applying criteria that didn't suit you, and were therefore causing the issue you brought up.
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
@rschwieb As I said, you can just forget the word "respected" if you can't figure out what was intended.
rschwieb
rschwieb
14:37
@BillDubuque Oh I did... "some members of this site reverse some action here then please let it be" Removing it does not change the question I asked, though, about who is supposed to let what stand.
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
@rschwieb It's quite simple: in the very rare case that some action in this room is reversed then let it be.
rschwieb
rschwieb
OK, I will admit that is simple.

Doesn't that make the room pointless though? If we followed that convention faithfully, then a small group (even smaller than the regular users of this subpage) could completely reverse all actions. Moreover it isn't clear why the opinions of users that just happen to use this room should automatically be second-class opinions.
It seems like the real nature of the problem is how we have to self-arbitrate. When effective escalation of arbitration is possible, that provides more stability to disputes like the ones we're talking about. Unfortunately the best we have is a thinly-stretched line of volunteers, so it makes it hard for us to have robust arbitration.
 
2 hours later…
José Carlos Santos
José Carlos Santos
16:59
Bad PSQ
user21820
user21820
17:12
@JoséCarlosSantos Closed.
José Carlos Santos
José Carlos Santos
@user21820 Thanks.
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
18:12
@rschwieb As far as I can see, these cases are rare, so why not give it a try and see how it works out. That's much better than having battling rooms.
Xander Henderson
Xander Henderson
18:53
cv-pls definite-integrals This looks like pure HNQ bait to me, and is either "too broad" or is "not about math." In honour of $\pi$ day, can we get some $\pi$ themed integrals?‭ - DavidG‭ 2019-03-14 09:15:55Z
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
19:15
@XanderHenderson Doesn't MathJax in the title prevent it from entering HNQ?
Xander Henderson
Xander Henderson
@BillDubuque Indeed, but not everyone knows that.
It is possible to write a question which is HNQ bait, yet not realize that the question will never hit the HNQ because it has TeX in the title.
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
Yeah, you can't have your pi and eat it too....
Xander Henderson
Xander Henderson
@BillDubuque What I said was "This looks like HNQ bait." It looks like the kind of question that is designed to get on the HNQ and generate views by appealing to popularity. The fact that it can't actually get to the HNQ does not imply that the question itself does not have the form of HNQ bait.
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
@XanderHenderson Of course I know what you mean.
 
2 hours later…
rschwieb
rschwieb
21:50
Psq math.stackexchange.com/q/3145235/29335
José Carlos Santos
José Carlos Santos
22:04
Bad PSQ
@XanderHenderson It's closed now.

« first day (2618 days earlier)      last day (2173 days later) »