@SimplyBeautifulArt Closed now, and open for deletion!

Hi @amWhy @SimplyBeautifulArt do you think this question should be deleted: math.stackexchange.com/q/2430877/133781 ?

@user21820 Both deleted now: revisions/timeline and revisions/timeline. I am unstarring your message.

Still it might be worth pointing out that the latter - Positive real numbers and inequality $a^2 + b^2 + c^2 \geq \sqrt 3 abc$ whenever $abc \leq a+b+c$ - was deleted second time. It was undeleted before and the comments from Michael Rozenberg show some disagreement with the deletion.

But I think that if there is a need to keep an eye on this specific post - to see whether it is undeleted again - then a message about this single post can be posted and starred (so that it is not completely forgotten).

@SimplyBeautifulArt @amWhy: Only one more delete vote needed here.

@MartinSleziak @amWhy @Did @SimplyBeautifulArt: I think there's a need to keep an eye on that user. See here and here.

@Xam I think it depends on what the title means. It says "My professor can't explain how to do these". If it means "my professor won't explain because it's graded homework", then why should we? But if it means "my professor doesn't want to explain", then it's okay but the question is still so terrible that it takes a mind-reader to figure out what it is asking...

@amWhy It's now gone! =)

@Xam @amWhy @Did @SimplyBeautifulArt I just had the ironic thought that one could answer as many calculus PSQs as possible to get enough rep to then start deleting them all... Anyway, just joking...

@amWhy: And um, is it just me or does it seem that some user X is a bit annoying and making strange requests to you? Or do you actually know X in person?

@SimplyBeautifulArt Now deleted - revisions/timeline. Unpinning/unstarring.

@amWhy @Did @SimplyBeautifulArt: One more downvote and we can delete it.

@SimplyBeautifulArt Hmm this one is strange; the asker's previous questions were okay. Maybe I'll wait a while longer before deleting, if the asker doesn't show up and say something.

@SimplyBeautifulArt Yea I do this to reference the relevant messages, as well as to avoid duplicating links. =)

@SimplyBeautifulArt But what makes you think I'm a "he"? =)

@user21820 well, that question is of very low quality. That's why I asked.

@user21820 Yes! No.

I mean it's not just you, if your referring to the the user X I think you are (who makes strange, often persistent requests to me, in a particular chatroom). Don't know quite how to handle the situation firmly but gently. And no, I don't know X in person.

@SimplyBeautifulArt, @user21820, @Did, @Jack, @Xam: Another poor post from BigSmile needs to be closed: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2431202/…. PSQ in imperative. Period.

@MartinSleziak Thanks for this piece of info. I really did not know that being prevented from voting to close a post a second time, after it is reopened was temporary, or rather time limited. This is good to know. Thanks again!

To be honest, I am no longer sure. (As I mentioned, I definitely remember casting close vote on the same post twice - but it was not after reopening; it was the case that my original close vote aged and the post wasn't closed as a result of my first vote.)

@amWhy Hmm I presume you've not even replied to emails from X. If so, then I'm perplexed as to why X continues. One possible way is to reply to the present comment saying "no and please don't ask again".

@amWhy Downvoted and voted to close.

@user21820 Thanks!

@MartinSleziak I vaguely recall closing for the second time some weeks after a post got reopened. But I don't know how I could find such a post (presumably there's a way via an SE query).

Per @MartinSleziak

@Martin: I think many users, along with Did, have voiced concern about the status of the mod's chatroom, if and when it would be undeleted, or re-established, and its subsequent status as public or private. So I took it upon myself to announce what you directed at Did, so we all would be able to welcome the changed status.

@amWhy Open for deletion

@user21820 Society

Wait a minute

where's my starboard?

Nvm, just had to refresh the page

@SimplyBeautifulArt Deleted

@amWhy Deleted, unstarring

@user21820 Seeing as Martin's starred comment covers the same post, should we unstar yours?

@amWhy Starred and open for deletion.

@SimplyBeautifulArt Great, now needs only one more delete vote.

@SimplyBeautifulArt Great! Now needs only one more delete vote.

@user21820 I have a hard time "slamming doors". I have left a comment about rarely reviewing the email account he's tried contacting me through, (which is 100% true), and have no plans to go to it anytime soon to track down a needle in a haystack of spam.

@Did @amWhy Dupe hammer? math.stackexchange.com/questions/2432039/…

@user21820 Also I said "no" to the most recent request/"suggestion" about a computer I own. Now, I've been asked if I could buy one (! Seems to be hinting at me buying one for him!) Maybe we can talk in a private chat (or "gallery" chat). It seems when I try to be helpful, encouraging, supportive, there's always that 0.5% that don't seem able to respect boundaries. (That's not to mean "inappropriate actions of the worst kind", because that certainly is not the case with user X.)

Very much so false answer

Accompanying, ofc, a PSQ

@SimplyBeautifulArt self-deleted answer

Yup

that was quick

@SimplyBeautifulArt Yup... needs two more close votes, @Did, @user21820, @Jack

:40044295 yes! shakes head at my stupid error, jumps quickly to edit it in time.

@amWhy Btw, if you hadn't noticed, I finally figured out how to reply to myself

@SimplyBeautifulArt How? I've wanted to do that, occasionally!

Have you ever clicked the little arrow next to a comment and seen that permalink button?

Yes, indeed.

And if you copy/paste into the chat on its own, it makes its own little box.

@SimplyBeautifulArt Yes, just got the hang of that today, actually.

Darned multi-line. But hopefully that makes sense

chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/40044365#40044365

Copy the last numbers after the # and put a colon in front of the number

@amWhy Checking

@amWhy Yup, works :D

:40044772 Can also reply to removed comments maybe?

Or not it seems

It seems that one needs to use the permalink of one's comment (copy and pasted) into a separate comment, in order to refer to one's comment with the the transcript number?

That's how I do it

But you can also reply to comments before they are made

Since the script names comments one by one, so you can guess the next number

@SimplyBeautifulArt Well, it goes a long way to filling that need.

@amWhy :P

@SimplyBeautifulArt Ahhh, okay, I see how that could work.

It's tedious to do and also doesn't work the greatest, since if someone makes a chat message in another room...

(the numbers are shared by all of SE)

Like, as in the following:

:40040892

:40040639 Hehe, I wonder how this works.

Alas, I do not think that works

But given a number, you can find the chat message and where its from

@SimplyBeautifulArt First chat message of all time

@SimplyBeautifulArt Cool!

chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/00000002#00000002

:-/

chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/00000002#00000002

Meh, the second chat message of all time is probably deleted

T_T I tried

@SimplyBeautifulArt It's from the same asker who asked the PSQ you posted to which I am now replying.

@SimplyBeautifulArt, @Did, @user21820 This question with its -10 net score, has been closed, but now has 4 reopen votes. Alternatively, we can delete the post with two more delete votes.

@amWhy alternatives sound good

One more delete vote on this meta answer

@SimplyBeautifulArt and all visiting this chat: Does any one else find it annoying, and inappropriate, for answerers who habitually answer PSQs, to upvote the PSQ questions immediately (to preemptively counter downvotes they know are coming,) in order to make answering such questions appear more "valid" , and are the first to cast reopen votes on PSQ questions they've answered, to help safeguard it from possible deletion, after which, once deleted, their "earned rep" from answering PSQ's would go away?

@amWhy Ofc

@SimplyBeautifulArt Well, yeah, I think it's pretty obvious that the phenomena I describe happens too frequently. But most complaints on meta are wielded against users who vote to close PSQ's, or downvote poor questions, poor answers, and answers that hand out, to the PSQ-asker, a complete, paste-and-copy-able solution. Complaints about closed questions, complaints about deleted questions, complaints about downvotes, and downvotes received on an answer "even though the answer is correct, mathematically"

We need to express the other side of the coin, with respect to whining askers, and whining answerers, both proclaiming "unjustified, mean, rude" actions by some users who have a very different (and more experienced) story to tell. I'd like to see a few meta posts addressing answering enablers, addressing the (too) many users that return every two-seven days as a "new user", after deleting (or not) former accounts, after they reach a question ban, etc.

Any way, as it's been recently, meta is becoming more of a "whining forum" about asker/answerer "vicitms", or finger-waving criticism from users who both whine for themselves, playing a martyr, defending "user-victims" whose question(s) were closed as off topic, by blaming closers for our inability to see effort when there is none, or context where there is none.

Perhaps I should be posting these verbose comments of mine in the meta-math chat room.

@amWhy @Did @user21820 I downvoted this answer because I believe it doesn't answer the question at all.

Also the answerer doesn't seem to know what he/she is doing.

Also, if anyone is interested, there is a new answer to "Is 'playing dumb' considered un-helpful?", which now has a comment conversation: math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/26891/…

@amWhy :/

@amWhy PSQ with caps

Say, does anyone want to invite Professor Vector to the chat?

@Did @amWhy Dupe hammer: math.stackexchange.com/q/2432249/272831

Another possible thing to dupe hammer: math.stackexchange.com/q/2432229/272831

@SimplyBeautifulArt Hardly, given my perspective.

Okay then. Just noticed him on some questions

@SimplyBeautifulArt He tends to answer primarily PSQ's. More recently, I've seen him call folks out, but not on the poor questions he answers, and as a rule, he's been rather defensive of any criticism of his answering tendencies. I do see improvement; I'm just very hesitant that now is the right time to extend him a personal invite. But then again, if he ventured here on his own accord, I would certainly respect that.

@SimplyBeautifulArt Dupe hammered.

@amWhy Ah, okay. Sure

This user has posted three PSQ's it seems today

@SimplyBeautifulArt (Indeed three questions in one hour.) One has since been deleted by Dante (the user you linked to), but I also found it a bit odd that both the remaining posts were answered by the same user, whose answers were both accepted quickly by Dante, and who likely added upvotes to Dante's questions, and vice versa.

@SimplyBeautifulArt, @Did, @user21820 This question needs to be closed again after having been reopened. Argh!. The post now has two close votes (one I cast, because I wasn't party to its initial closure.) Needs three more. At -10 net votes, we can assume three re-open votes came for asker, answerer1, and answerer2, respectively.

@SimplyBeautifulArt Considering that I see that you have included link to a comment as I see in the revision history, perhaps you'd be able to respond to @amWhy's comment/inquiry:

I guess the comment might have been removed (although I do not know for sure, Simply can perhaps confirm whether they saw the comment in question):

Ah yes, thanks @MartinSleziak

As Martin foresees, the edit made by Michael was copied (verbatim with typos) from a comment made by the OP, which has since been deleted @amWhy

It seems that Michael also commented about this just now:

Actually @Martin, and @SimplyBeautifulArt, it was Michael Rosenberg who edited in what he claimed to be "comments from the asker". I see no such comments. Simply only edited Michael's edit by trying to explain what Michael failed to include, the source of the comment. The edit from Michael was never an edit to the post by the asker.

@amWhy Yes, I know that. And in the next revision after that Simply added this text: Taken from [comments](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2431905/find-lim-x-to-1-frac‌​x13-sqrtx-8x-1#comment5023406_2431911):

@MartinSleziak I deleted the edit by Michael, because I could find nothing in the way of comment(s) from the asker actually saying anything of the sort.

That's the reason why I thought that there was such a comment, but it was in the meantime deleted - and Simply's response above confirms this: "the edit made by Michael was copied (verbatim with typos) from a comment made by the OP"

@MartinSleziak It just feels to me, @Martin, that you're fine about not including me in your conversations with others about matters that related to me also. I've been feeling as though you've been acting very dismissive of me, of late.

I don't know what you're talking about. I've pinged you didn't I?

With respect to the seemingly QUESTIONABLE EDIT I may have made: I could care less what y'all decide. I never saw any comments, before or after mixedmath's deletion of comments that Michael may have copy and pasted into the askers post (protocol being that Michael would have been correct to ask the asker to include the relevant comments in his/her question posts). Perhaps I missed them prior to the deletion of comments by mixedmath. As I said, I'll let you do what you want, @MartinSleziak.

Since you and Simply already are dealing with the question (edits, comments), I do not plan to interact with it in any way. All I wanted to do was to make you aware of the possibility that some comment(s) might have been deleted. I guess after Simply's response this could be now clear.

@amWhy that is likely because mixedmath deemed that comment along with the entire thread under Michael's answer was off-topic

Hence, you can no longer find evidence of the OP saying that

(If I recall though, we have our own mod in our own chat, whom has extended his hand in the past to view deleted comments)

I have edited the tags to what I think is a more appropriate choice. But I definitely do not intend to rollback what you call the seemingly questionable edit. (As I said above, I'll leave that to you and Simply, the situation does not need more chaos by one more editor involved in an edit war.)

(If you really wish to use back-handed methods to find the support for the edits)

:( Hope I'm not too late to the party

( @amWhy if you do intend on asking Mith, I've already pinged him, though it seems (for once!) that he's already head in to bed)

@SimplyBeautifulArt To whom are you speaking?

@amWhy :P You I guess

Oh, whoops then lol

xD Its okay, don't bother then

@SimplyBeautifulArt You are asking whether I "wish to use back-handed methods to find the support for "the" edits (whose edits anyway?)? And I have no idea why you are asking whether I "do intend on asking Mith"... Why would I even consider that?

@amWhy Idk, I thought you'd be interested in knowing the source that started the edits. Or at least not be in the blind as to what Michael and I were referring to in the edits.