@Did: Wow thanks for putting that disclaimer right above the rubbish answer. Did you also vote to delete the exact copy of that rubbish that I had starred on the right? If you did, then we just need one more, @SimplyBeautifulArt @Jack, thanks! =)

@SimplyBeautifulArt I didn't know that either! Looks like some other badges also have this feature, such as populist. Some even link to multiple posts, such as enlightened and good-answer. I suppose people whose questions all get deleted wouldn't have any of these though...

Meta.SE: Are deleted posts shown in badge-related lists? (Blatant self-promotion, but it seems related to what you talked about.)

@MartinSleziak Ah thanks. The answer to that question you linked is actually ambiguous, but the example in your question itself strongly suggests it works for all of them.

@user21820 I will just point out that the answer we talked above was edited by Did to include the caveat about circularity. We will see whether the OP will leave it this way or whether they'll decide to rollback. (Ping also to @Did just that they know they've been mentioned here in chat.)

@MartinSleziak Yea that was the one I was referring to in my above comment to Did.

Oh, sorry for the redundant ping then. I did not notice that you have already pinged them about this.

Low quality answer?

@user21820 Deleted.

@user21820 =P

@SimplyBeautifulArt Great! I've unstarred it.

→ 15 messages moved to This is the Realm of Simply Beautiful Art

@LeakyNun Depends; I personally assess and deal with every post based on intentions rather than just content. This goes for both questions and answers. All posts that appear to push for a crank idea are not welcome. All posts by people who have good intentions are welcome, even if wrong, and it suffices to point out the errors in comments.

In any case, this chat-room is where you can come and discuss posts that you are unsure how to deal with.

like, as a simplistic example

I post "teacher asked us to prove 1+1=2. however, I calculated 1+1=3"

I wish to emphasize that the frequent participants in this room do not always agree, though we agree far more frequently than disagree, because some junk are so obviously junk.

and then you comment "1+1 is actually 2", and I realize my calculations are wrong

but then there is no possible answer because there is no question.

@LeakyNun Still depends. The asker is free to delete the question. The asker or someone else is also free to write an answer to explain the mistake in his/her computations.

hmm

there's a way all of these do not become circular

to define $\sin x$ as its taylor series

@LeakyNun I know that, but see I also judge pedagogical value.

@user21820 right

If you can convince me that the vast majority of readers of that post understand how to non-circularly justify that post, then I give it to you and will upvote it.

As of now, I've personally starred it on the right for people to help downvote and delete.

what do you mean by "pedagogical value"?

Exactly what I stated above. If the post mislead a significant fraction of readers, it ought to be deleted or amended. In this case, it is such an egregious error that I do not think the poster deserves to have the post left up.

It is precisely such errors in teaching that have led to a glut of rubbish mathematics in the layman world. Incidentally, if we want to continue this slightly off-topic conversation, you are welcome to SBA's realm for random things.

@LeakyNun: And also, the fact that the poster rolled-back Did's edit pointing out the circularity, but didn't clarify the contents of the post, despite now 51 people who agree that it is circular, lends credence to my stand that it has zero/negative pedagogical value.

@user21820 @MartinSleziak The OP suddenly came back to life to delete the edit. Modifying the wrong part of their post is still not an option, it seems. I commented and flagged. math.stackexchange.com/a/533268

@Did I have been and will continue to be pessimistic about such users. Lol.

so, edit war declared?

@Did I don't see it in the low-quality review queue. Where is it?

@LeakyNun No edit war needed. We just need enough people who downvote to negative score and then we can delete it off.

+24/-20

how can we get others to downvote

without risking them upvoting instead

@LeakyNun That's exactly the problem we faced just a few months ago.

@user21820 solution?

Then I found 4/5 of us in SBA's realm dedicated to quality, and we started cooperating on those posts which we agree on.

@LeakyNun Of course not. FYI, the site explicitely recommends to avoid them, hence my combo comment+flag.

@LeakyNun 4/5 people are nowhere enough to deal with such heavily upvoted posts though. This one was on the HNQ (hot network questions) list if I recall correctly.

@Did flag as what?

@LeakyNun Not sure I share your analysis of how things go: to me, upvotes on wrong answers may at first accumulate but they have a tendency to become extinct when the flaw is mentioned tenaciously enough.

@LeakyNun "In need of mod intervention".

@Did That was patently not the case for the one mentioned here, which accumulated more upvotes than downvotes after I first commented on it.

good lord it's already 3 years

3 years?

@Did: Also, I consider this post to be wrong but I don't think its score is going to stop increasing anytime soon.

@user21820 the answer is three years old

@LeakyNun Turns 4 next month.

Still... time to go...

let's hope it never turns 4

@user21820 Motl is too specific to be taken as representative of what is going on on the site (a physicist, extremely gifted at making believe they speak with authority, prone to verbal violence, probably upvoted by users from outside the mse's crowd, what have you).

@Did But isn't that usually the problem? HNQ?

@user21820 BTW, there are things of value in the answer, but the trouble is that the OP pretends they say something else than what they are saying.

@Did I totally understand that, but I have no respect for people who do not call a spade a spade. They call it a spoon and say that it's a deep fact about culinery that can only be appreciated by giants.

I wish someone else had posted a mathematically correct post with all the same useful facts.

@user21820 Same here.

OMG! I recognize that user (argh!!!) from a couple of years ago, or more!! The links to the relevant answers recharged that .... ummm... negative feeling I had back then.

@user21820 Voila! Glad you're taking up the challenge!? (Joking... but still, I wish...someone would.)

@amWhy =O Runs() ∧ Hides().

One more close vote needed for this question

@amWhy Now closed; open for deletion?

@amWhy One more delete vote.

@SimplyBeautifulArt Gone! Thanks for the lesson!

Open for deletion.

Missing content, though my judgement may be wrong on that one.

Loophole open for deletion.

^ Which we've previously deleted.

@SimplyBeautifulArt Did what I could on each, one was deleted, the other two need only one vote for deletion. Did you originally link this question? Cuz I could have sworn I clicked on a link here and found the linked post, which both lacks context, and is too broad. Any way, needs to be closed (from my perspective.)

@amWhy Oh yeah x.x

@SimplyBeautifulArt Well, it was a good call!

Note the user of my last link (asker); also posted this, with no consequences. math.stackexchange.com/questions/2431900/…

Can't be bothered with this image only post.

And then there's this question from the same asker as in the previous two links: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2432174/… I wish more users would help to catch these more or less upon their postings; unfortunately, it was only after this askers third post (which I linked), that I thought I'd check on any ongoing behavior from same user.

@SimplyBeautifulArt already voted to close. Here's another more recent post from that user (asker of your linked question): math.stackexchange.com/questions/2440465/…

@SimplyBeautifulArt Note the reason at the top that the asker appeals to: the quotation rule!

@amWhy x.x your last comment. Why did it take people so long to realize!

@amWhy Anyways, open for deletion

@amWhy ?

@SimplyBeautifulArt this page (your "Can't be bothered with this image post only) math.stackexchange.com/questions/2438974/…

@amWhy But I couldn't understand your last comment

Note the reason at the top (of image) that asker uses: quotation rule. Check the right side where the asker tries to justify steps. I mean, the word ought to be "quotient rule"; I just found that the asker having named it as the "quotation rule" hilarious!

Also the use of "derivate" hurts me internally.

@amWhy Either way, very few steps shown and image-only is grounds for closure to me.

Downvote to delete.

@SimplyBeautifulArt Oh, I agree; worth starring and pinning (done!)...

@SimplyBeautifulArt one more downvote needed. And upon that, the question is open for deletion; note, the question was posted 2 days ago.

@amWhy No amWhy, you just voted now to do so. So why did you somehow fail to do so? Probably failed to click on the confirmation window, or something idiotic like that?

@amWhy Lmao!

@SimplyBeautifulArt Deleted now.

My best humor is self-deprecating !!

xD

1 vote to reopen

Dupe

@SimplyBeautifulArt Reopened.

@SimplyBeautifulArt Still in progress... of closure.

Question is Too broad (four PSQ's, one post) math.stackexchange.com/questions/2443782/…