« first day (3541 days earlier)      last day (31 days later) » 

3:31 AM
@amWhy I agree with everything you say, namely that multipart exercises could build on each other and that users shouldn't be expecting as much from answerers. I think I was fixated on the organizational point of view, where I felt that having everything I've relevant to a particular sub(enough) topic, placed inside one post, would be helpful as a single reference for everything related to that subtopic, like a large canonical thread. With the other perspective on it, I will definitely...
... close some questions with far too many subparts, but since these two aspects clash a bit for me, I may not be able to do it very consistently.
6 hours later…
9:07 AM
D1, D2, D3, D4
D5, D6, D7
3 hours later…
12:06 PM
PSQ with five upvotes.
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Blacklisted user (71): Baby rudin theorem 8.11 by nika devdariani on math.SE
2 hours later…
1:55 PM
The fact that it is a question does not mean that it isn't a duplicate. Is this proof correct for positive semidefinite matrices?‭ - Black Beard 53‭ 2021-09-12 05:31:45Z
Q: Is it true that $A^2\succ B^2$ implies that $A\succ B$, but not the converse?

Guanghua ShuI remember reading somewhere about the following properties of non-negative definite matrix. But I don't know how to prove it now. Let $A$ and $B$ be two non-negative definite matrices. If $A^2\succ B^2$, then it necessarily follows that $A\succ B$, but $A\succ B$ doesn't necessarily leads to $A^...

2:17 PM
@XanderHenderson I've closed it as a duplicate.
@JoséCarlosSantos Thanks. I had previously closed it as a duplicate, but another gold-badger disagreed. I was hoping to get some consensus, but if folk are happy to whip out their gold badges and show them off, I guess that is okay, too.
2:37 PM
@XanderHenderson I have no doubt in this case that it is a duplicate.
What is a "blacklisted user"?
@JoséCarlosSantos @XanderHenderson I can reopen, too, if the need occurs.
@Xander weirdest thing happened, I voted to close the blacklisted user post, and like magic, it was closed ;-)
@XanderHenderson It would be great to have some clear guidance, perhaps along the lines of EoQS, for how questions should be handled. There is a great profusion of questions asking to have their solutions checked, but not much enforcement in how they are answered. For instance, many answers just provide their own solutions instead of offering feedback on the OP's solution. Sometimes, answers are just of the form "Yes, that's okay".
Also, browsing the discussions on Mathematics Meta, it is not clear when (if at all) a question tagged can be closed as a duplicate. I think establishing some clear guidance on these matters (that is, as an official policy) would be great, if possible.
@Joe I'm not sure, but you may be able to find relevant information on the SmokeDetector's wiki. For instance, here: Guidance for Blacklisting and Watching.
@TheAmplitwist It is hard to give clear guidance, as I don't think that there are clear community standards about how such posts should be handled.
I have tried in the past to get some consensus built, but it has never quite worked out.
For example:
A: Is answering only "This is correct." to a proof-verification question acceptable?

Xander HendersonI answered the question being discussed in this meta-question. The first paragraph of my answer is, I think, relevant here: In general, if a question on Math SE may be answered with a simple yes-or-no, then the question is almost certainly off-topic. There seems to be a consensus in the commun...

A: Is answering only "This is correct." to a proof-verification question acceptable?

quidThis comes up frequently, and the meta-question is basically a duplicate (see below), but this time let me try to pin down the problem with this type of answer. If verifying the answer is just as hard as answering the question, the answer-post adds nothing. Let me elaborate. Literally just yes...

A: How to answer proof-verification questions?

quidMost of the time it is in my opinion and observation possible to give a more detailed answer. Points that can often be addressed include: Suggesting minor improvements of the presentation or variations. Giving a high-level summary of the argument. Mentioning points where details might be ad...

@TheAmplitwist: Thanks for the link. Unfortunately, the guidance seems a little opaque: "Each SmokeDetector instance maintains a very dynamic list of users which are 'blacklisted'. Users are added to the user blacklist when a post they created receives tpu feedback." I have no idea what "tpu" means.
3:11 PM
But these questions and answers are primarily focused on how to answer questions. This is distinct from asking such questions.
Personally, I don't see a lot of value in the tag, and I have suggested (only half jokingly) that we either (1) burninate the tag, or (2) submit an Area 51 proposal to create a "Proof Verification" SE site (in the spirit of Code Review).
@XanderHenderson user21820 gave suggestions regarding asking questions as an answer to The problem with proof verification. Just something I came across and wanted to mention.
@XanderHenderson I think there is value in taking up either or both of these suggestions seriously.
@TheAmplitwist ME 2!!
In any case, I see that this is a difficult problem for our site, so I don't expect an easy answer. But I have some hopes that with initiatives like the EoQS coming out, the door is not closed on such similar problems.
@amWhy :)
@Joe I agree, it's of little help to me, too. But I thought it might be worth a shot to put a link to the wiki.
@TheAmplitwist Thank you for finding that. I was searching for that particular thread, but could not find it (I couldn't remember what it was called, and I seemed to have the mistaken memory of having answered it).
The above (multiple times undeleted) Riemann-question was locked and disputed. Does anyone know the result of this discussion ?
3:24 PM
@TheAmplitwist My guess is that an Area 51 proposal would be shot down by the SE overlords, and that there is no way that we could ever get consensus community support to burninate the tag. :\
@XanderHenderson :(
Anywho, time to teach.
Until the impossible happens, can we at least get some guidance on when a question can be considered a duplicate? Perhaps something like the suggestions given by user21820 can be formalized into a policy?
@XanderHenderson No issues. Thanks for chatting.
3:28 PM
@TheAmplitwist I think user21820's suggestion "....proof-verification questions can be closed as duplicate if roughly the same approach had been asked about before" is reasonable and probably has the least controversy. I have been using that as the main criteria to vote to close such questions.
@ArcticChar I would certainly be in support of that.
And I think whether or not this is written as a policy does not really matter.... I have yet encountered any disagreement when applying this criteria to close solution-verfication question. Most of the time I leave a comment (like this) to further explain my vote.
3:58 PM
hey all, noob question: Reopen votes go immediately into the review queue, correct? and leaves the queue after enough approve or reject votes are accumulated?
4:16 PM
@RyanG One reopen vote would put the post into the queue. The post would stay in the queue unless (1) it's reopened, or (2) three "leave closed" votes are casted.
4:33 PM
@ArcticChar Thanks, Arctic, for the clear answer. Do undelete votes get similarly noticed?
@RyanG Undelete vote gets.... unnoticed most of the time. You can find some recent votes in the moderation tools, but there isn't a undelete vote queue (or a delete vote queue).
You may post your undelete request here (is there is any)
4:57 PM
@ArcticChar Cheers
5:16 PM
5:58 PM
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Link at beginning of body (40): Why does the area of this square equal (a+b)^2? by Aaron R on math.SE
1 hour later…
7:08 PM
Yet another bad question trying to garner sympathy using a famous problem.
7:27 PM
@user21820 Answerers Conan Blue, Conan Green??? wrt two of the answers to the question you linked.
Maybe I'll branch off into amWhy Ruby, amWhy Emerald, amWhy Diamond, amWhy Pearl ... ... :/
@amWhy I'm sorry, what?
@XanderHenderson ;P I was seriously trying to explain it to you, until i checked on the question... ;P
1 hour later…
1 hour later…
10:11 PM
@Xander Guess who finally wore out reopen reviewers? I am sick of the fact that the most persistent askers/abusers (sometimes answerer/abusers) now can go on indefinitely to keep questions alive.
11:00 PM
@amWhy For now : I will try to be uncontroversial and stick to obvious decisions. The basic problem for me is that I'm not able to defend my stance right now. I'm a hundred percent sure that I want to be using CURED. I'll place, on CURED, only questions that I'm sure don't need debate for a few days or weeks. Once I'm ready I will try to attack the harder cases with a firmer stance. Baby cases.
For starters, I just deleted this question , and I'm a bit surprised that two of the three answerers actually don't have accounts anymore.
(Note : remove three from the above, there were more than three of them)
11:19 PM
Sorry, @Xander. Not ranting in my last comment. Just wanted you to know that this question ultimately was reopened, after a few trips though the reopen queue Just not liking the incessant chances userto try to reopen one's own question.
@amWhy It's irritating, but I thought only the first edit takes it into the reopen queue? Perhaps multiple edits do this as well, which makes it terrible.
@TeresaLisbon Ever since revamping the review queues, an asker has perpetual privilege to make the slightest edit to kick it back, each and every edit, to the reopen queue. This isn't the only time it's been abused.
@amWhy That's very bad to hear, that and the removal of time tracking on profile pages are quite infuriating for mods/reviewers.
11:35 PM
When I look at the edit history, I see that certain edits are marked as "Added to Review". Can non-moderators see this?
@XanderHenderson Yes, it is visible to me.
M'kay. So that can be used to get a sense of whether or not the feature is being abused.
I see. Two such edits were marked for me, including the most recent one.
@XanderHenderson I guess we should check if this issue has been addressed on meta.se?
Yes. As you note, the question was edited into the queue twice. SE staff are aware of these kinds of issues, and are thinking about potential solutions.
@amWhy Yes, that would be a good next step.
My impression is that "2 edits -> queue" is likely to fall below the threshold of abuse.
11:43 PM
I think 2 edits is too little to call abuse as you say @XanderHenderson. The first edit was the substantial one, though. The second one was more minor (I think it cut down on broadness), and would have not changed my opinion on that question had it stayed.
@XanderHenderson That may be, but we had an earlier asker with what seemed like a dozen attempts to edit --> reopen queue. In any case, it would be good to address, particularly in the current case, where the OP has a bit of history on this site.
Oh yes, there is plenty of history for sure.
Not just the edits, but the meta/off-topic content in the post as well.
@amWhy Two edits sending a post to a queue almost certainly falls below the threshold of abuse, and 30 such edits are clearly abusive (I think). The question is: where, precisely, do we draw the line?
And how much does similar editing of other questions weigh in (e.g. if I edit one question three times, and another twice, what does that mean?).
In fact, the OP's recently been suspended, probably a few hours back.
@XanderHenderson Yes, good questions. This needs to be clarified. Going from one edit to review (whether the asker or not edited), to as many as you'd like, as trivial the edit may be, seems like going from one extreme to the other, and that other extreme is where we are now.
11:48 PM
But I am thinking of a joke attributed to George Bernard Shaw: "Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?" "I'd think about it." "How about for a dollar?" "Hell no, what kind of woman do you think I am?!" "We know what kind of woman you are, now we are just haggling."
We are down to the haggling. :D
Anyway, it is nearly 5 here, I have office hours at 6, and I would like to hold those hours at home, rather than in my office at work. I need to leave, now.
@XanderHenderson Hah!
@XanderHenderson I would say : not less than 3, and not more than 5. But see you!
@TeresaLisbon Well-deserved, I'd say.
See you, @TeresaLisbon.
@amWhy After the post they recently put out(!) : see you as well!

« first day (3541 days earlier)      last day (31 days later) »