3:42 AM
Why has this question not been closed yet?

3 hours later…
6:36 AM
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Blacklisted username, blacklisted website in answer, potentially bad ip for hostname in answer, potentially problematic ns configuration in answer, blacklisted user (256): Why does intersection always preserve "closed" structures? by Kavita on math.SE

7:36 AM
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad ip for hostname in body, bad pattern in url body, blacklisted website in body, pattern-matching website in body, potentially bad ns for domain in body, +2 more (391): What is Ultra X Prime? by danielodrigue on math.SE

5 hours later…
12:22 PM

2 hours later…
2:37 PM
@Servaes It's now closed. One more downvote, and it will be open for deletion.
@rschwieb This too has been closed, and is open for deletion.

3:13 PM
@Servaes @amWhy: Up for deletion now.

@user21820 Got it!

1 hour later…
4:17 PM
@rschwieb Now deleted, thanks to @user21820's third vote to delete.

4:33 PM
This edit mystifies me. I edited the question primarily to remove the big vertical math from the title, but also cleaned up a few things, including some numerals which were not behaving as numbers (i.e. I changed "Attempt $1$:" to "Attempt 1:"). The asker kept all of my changes, but reverted that.

D1, D2, D3.
D4, D5, D6.
D7, D8, D9.
C1, C2, C3.
C4, C5, C6.
C7, C8, C9.
@XanderHenderson Maybe they are the (in my opinion weird) type of people who think that every single number must be rolled in LaTeX.

I swear that I remember a meta post about not TeXing numerals which are not numbers, but I cannot find it right now...
summon Martin

Can you imagine we're going to see some people call the virus Covid-$19$.

Oi...

Heheh...

4:38 PM
Or, worse yet, $COVID$-$19$?

No. $\mathsf{Covid\text{-}}19$.
Well I guess operatorname won't play well.

Ha!
Yes!

At least mathsf looks good on Covid.

Yuck. I hate sans serif fonts.
They are a tool of the DEVIL!

I'm totally not serious. I never ever used mathsf before 2 minutes ago.

4:41 PM
Heh. There are a lot of category theory people in my department, and they seem to have a real (pardon the expression) hard on for mathsf.
shudder
They are not the worst, however. The absolute worst are the Lie algebra people, with their unreadable mathfrak. I mean, $\mathfrak{A}$ vs $\mathfrak{U}$. What's wrong with these people!?

$\mathfrak{MATH}$ is wrong with these people. =P

4:54 PM
Needs details or clarity; three FGITW answers thus far. Compute lim\lim_{x\to1} (1+\sin(\pi x))^{\cot(\pi x)} without using l'Hospital's rule‭ - E.M.‭ 2020-03-31 16:29:34Z
@XanderHenderson Ah! I think that this is what i had in mind: math.meta.stackexchange.com/a/29924/468350

5:16 PM

@user21820 Oh, nooooooooooo!!
I get super annoyed with edit suggestions that want to change a single number 8, to $8$, then, because they can't submit an edit suggestion by adding two characters, go on to edit stuff not in need of editing so it will submit.
Or when a suggested editor inserts dollar signs about a math formula in the title, but fails to edit any nonformatted equations or math in the body!! If someone wants to suggest legitimate suggested edits, they ought to edit the entire post, if there is need to do so.

6:21 PM
@amWhy I'm actually okay with an editor adding MathJaX to titles and doing nothing else, as that keeps things off the HNQ.
@JyrkiLahtonen Greetings!

@XanderHenderson Dat true!.
Let me chime in: @JyrkiLahtonen, Hello!

Hi @amWhy, @XanderHenderson. Just checking whether my votes are needed. FGITW's with 100k+ attract my downvotes....
2

Yar.

Sorry, @Jyrki... I can't figure out the acronym FGITW :( Though I sort of get the gist of it, in that the FGITW's with 100k+ attract your downvotes.
@XanderHenderson Aha... FGITW is used here too. I've seen it, just can't figure out the acronym. If someone would be so kind as to spell it out, you can delete it immediately afterwards :/

Fastest gun in the west.

6:32 PM
@XanderHenderson Dahhhhh!! Thanks! those answerers are also LHFGs (Low-hanging fruit gatherers!!)
2

C1 dupe of FAQ with dupe answers.

@BillDubuque I've voted to close it. But you could have edited the tags, adding to them the elementary-number-theory tag (it is an elementary number theory question), and then use your golden hammer to close it as a dupe.

@JoséCarlosSantos I think the tag has to be added by somebody esle for dupehammer to work. See: It looks like the duplicate banner changed. How does it work now?
> First, we now look at the question's current tags instead of its original tags, unless you were the first one to add in a given tag (either by doing it yourself, or by approving an edit from someone else).

6:47 PM
@MartinSleziak Thank you.

@JoséCarlosSantos No, you can't use a tag dupehammer if you added that tag. That's why I had to post it here. But I should have waited for the tag edit since now I can't hammer it. Those LTE problems grow like weeds...

@MartinSleziak I added that tag, @Martin, so @Bill can close it using his dupe-hammer, though he may have already voted to close as a dupe.
@XanderHenderson Now closed. One more downvote makes it eligible for deletion.
@JoséCarlosSantos You're pretty much a FGITW, and quite often a LHFG, too, no? I don't mean in your distant past, but also now?
2

@amWhy I shall not engage in a discussion now, because I will have to leave in a few minutes. But I would like know what does LHFG stand for.

7:03 PM
@amWhy @JoséCarlosSantos

7:26 PM
Close request with one user a high-rep FGITW/LHFG answerer.
@amWhy The asker of this question has a not-so-stellar question record, in terms of quality of questions.

7:42 PM
@JoséCarlosSantos Anyway, I'm perplexed why you regularly link to or close out questions answered by FGITWs and LHFGs, but simultaneously answer in the FGITW and LHFG mode. Perhaps it takes one to see one, so you typically link or close good candidates for closure, but yet you seem not to internalize the ethos upon which you act on when linking posts you don't answer.
...when you fail to apply the same standards to a good many of your choices when answering.
3

8:07 PM
@amWhy Thanks.

8:38 PM
@amWhy And I am perplexed by that fact that you keep using the LHFG acronym, even after having been informed by me that I do not know what it stands for.

9:08 PM
@JoséCarlosSantos click on the arrow next to the comment of mind immediately following you request to know what LHFG stands for. It takes you to my comment defining "Low-hanging fruit gatherer."

9:22 PM
@JoséCarlosSantos The arrow to click on is the one in front of my comment that says @amWhy @JoséCarlosSantos

@amWhy I see no arrow there, but now I know what it means. That's enough.

@amWhy Yes, I answer lots of questions in those two modes. So, there is nothing to argue about here.
@amWhy The reason why, in my reply to Jyrki, I've mentioned this was only because it was a PSQ and because it had an answer by a high-reputation user.

@JoséCarlosSantos I never thought there was anything you could contest in my comment. Except that you feel you have a right to criticize, through downvotes and closure votes, and delete votes, posts no worse than the questions you often answer.
@JoséCarlosSantos And how many PSQ's do you regularly answer as a high rep user? Why didn't you mention those PSQ questions and answers you've given to them, to Jyrki??

@amWhy It's funny that you say that, since you decided to answer this question. And not in a distant past. And only one minute after it was posted.

9:34 PM
@JoséCarlosSantos As always, you fail to answer the questions posed to you, but attempt to point fingers at others.
@JoséCarlosSantos I may do so once a month, whereas you do so many times per day. There's a big difference between the two. Like at best 1:150, at worst, a 1:450 ratio (me:you per month).
@JoséCarlosSantos My sentiments are not just my sentiments. Your patterns are well known.

@amWhy I think it would be more constructive to tone down a bit. Rather, we should strive to (politely) query about the reasons behind such seemingly contradictory behavior (which I too am often puzzled by). Likely there are many users whose reasons are similar so if we can better understand such then we have a better chance of reforming a significant percentage of them.

9:51 PM
@BillDubuque I agree with you, @Bill. It's just hard trying to ask, in order to understand, when the users asked get so defensive.

@BillDubuque Let me focus on this specific question. From the comments by amWhy (later deleted or removed) I assumed that she saw it as a PSQ. Perhaps that that's your opinion too. But, to me, it seemed that the person who posted it had really stubled upon that series and did no know what to do about it. Of course, I may be wrong.

@JoséCarlosSantos But you do not afford the same considerations in the many question you vote to close, which you didn't answer. That's what concerns me. Why should we afford all good intentions from you, when you rarely afford such good intentions on the many many questions you vote to close? That's what I don't understand, Jose.
Why are only "PSQ-appearing" questions that you answer not close-worthy, but "PSQ-appearing" questions that you don't answer, you're readily willing to close?

@JoséCarlosSantos My opinion on that question is that experienced users shouldn't answer questions that are obvious dupes (of FAQs). Rather they should search for dupes and organize the dupes so that searches will have the best possible chance of guiding users to the best answers (this also makes it quicker to find such dupes when closing future dupes, whereas dupe-answering it makes searches more difficult by cluttering the search results with yet more dupes)

@amWhy I cannot answer in such a general way. And I do not vote to close in such a systematic way. Today, I got this question in my Close Votes review list, and I decided not to vote to close it. As well as with this one (which got closed anyway).
@BillDubuque I fully agree with your comment about dupes. I'll say more: I became much better in the last few months concerning finding dupes mainly thanks to you and to Martin R. And I hope I will improve even further.

@JoséCarlosSantos I confess that I don't understand your logic. How does the fact that the you believe that the user "really stubled upon that series and did no know what to do about it" play a role in dupe evaluation? Do you believe that your answer or Joriki's answer is novel?

10:07 PM
@BillDubuque Concerning that specific question, I was just saying that I did not see it as a PSQ. It had nothing to do with being a dupe or not. Do you think that, even if it was not a dupe, it did not deserve an answer?

@JoséCarlosSantos Great, I was very happy to see your behavior changing a bit after some of my comments. It is good to know that you strive to go further in this regard. It does get easier as you gain experience (and also more rewarding).

@JoséCarlosSantos The question which you decided not to close is a near dupe of a question which you answered a week ago: math.stackexchange.com/q/3589412/468350
That question is also likely a duplicate, though I couldn't find a good target (I looked; then answered).

@JoséCarlosSantos Generally I only use dupes (not PSQs) to close & delete. That ends up being much more work, but I think it ends up leaving the site with higher quality content (e.g. by not flushing the baby with the bath water in many cases) Likely most of the PSQs could also be closed as dupes too.

wow... I link that question here and immediately get a downvote on my answer
and @JoséCarlosSantos immediately receives an upvote
how petty

@XanderHenderson And now you got an upvote. That was from me. I hope that you did not think that I was the downvoter.

10:14 PM
@JoséCarlosSantos I didn't; the the timing of the upvote and the downvote coincided such that it seems like to have been the same person
hence, unlikely to be you

@XanderHenderson And now I got a downvote.

to the person who cast the downvote, if it wasn't out of churlish pettiness, I would be interested to know why
And several votes how now been retracted. Oy gewalt.

@XanderHenderson Craziness. Methinks this chatroom is being watched closely by those who are too cowardly to enter it. (Users can indeed follow chatrooms, without entering in them).

I'll note that the question could reasonably be closed for lacking context; however, I typically set a relatively low bar for questions tagged "notation". There is only so much which can be said.

@XanderHenderson I voted to close it as dupe (I've no hammer on those tags). There are likely many more dupe targets. It took 10 seconds to find that one -> @Jose

10:19 PM
@BillDubuque I just saw that. How did you find that post? My approach0 and google searches were unsuccessful.
Thank you, by the way.

@XanderHenderson I searched on "monoid unit group notation"

"monoid". That would have been a useful thing to remember. Also, that those things are called "units".

@BillDubuque I admit that I did not try to find a duplicate of that one. But that was not an easy one to search for. Your answer to @XanderHenderson makes sense, but I don't think that it would occur to me.

It has clearly been too long since I took a course in algebra. I think like an analyst. :\

@XanderHenderson Grrrrr! :P

10:25 PM
:P

Since we're all here, perhaps that this PSQ could be closed fast.

@JoséCarlosSantos one more to go...

I will leave now. Bye.

@JoséCarlosSantos closed!

10:40 PM
@JoséCarlosSantos It's my downvote. Here's why: first the answer will likely leave many readers just as confused since many won't know the slashed set-difference notation. Second, it is not at all conceptual, i.e. it does not convey the algebraic essence of the matter - mentioning only set representation. Third, I hold experienced users to much higher standards. If you are going to answer LHF dupes then you should strive to go above and beyond - sharing your deep knowledge on the subject.
2
That said, it's better that we don't answer questions that we know are probably dupes. Put trivial answers like that in comments and remark that the question will likely soon be closed as a dupe. That way it doesn't waste precious community resources: others won't waste their time posting "better" answers that end up being dupes, and others won't need to spend extra effort closing and deleting it (in the best case it will be done by the system - roomba)
2

Thanks, @BillDubuque for your contributions in this chat.

10:58 PM
@XanderHenderson Is your answer really being repeatedly downvoted and upvoted? I've never seen that tactic before, but nothing surprises me any more when it comes to MSE political battles. Or maybe a cat is dancing on a keyboard ...

@BillDubuque hahaha... While my cat likes to "dance on my keyboard", he's been partaking in a 2 hour-long cat nap... oops, he has arisen now from that nap and wants attention!

@BillDubuque Probably just a cat. There were several upvote / downvote cycles. It has settled down to a downvote and a couple of upvotes.

11:15 PM
@XanderHenderson We may need a new suspension reason: "vote pawing" (or should it be "Sleepy Joe voting"?)

Heh.

@BillDubuque Or "vote interference" which would include "vote pawing" from cats or dogs, and also "vote pecking" from birds, or...

11:39 PM
@user21820 D1-D12 are gone; D13-D15 each need one additional delete vote.

@amWhy "vote pecking", yeah, I'd love to be able to close vote with reason "for the birds". Maybe some April 1st SE will have a sense of humor a la Google...