« first day (2235 days earlier)      last day (542 days later) » 

12:11 AM
@JohnMa one more downvote needed now, then open for deletion.
 
1:11 AM
900 more rep, and I can cast delete votes, right?
maybe I should whore it up a bit
 
 
4 hours later…
5:16 AM
@XanderHenderson For the second link, the asker did provide his/her reasoning and attempted solution, and I'm very lenient as long as I see nonzero effort.
@amWhy The asker of the duplicate to that question is ridiculous. See his/her comments under Michael R.'s answer, which basically commands people to do what they already did.
@XanderHenderson It was on the HNQ (hot-network-question). I saw it when it was 'hot' and knew it was doomed to poor quality.
@JohnMa @Did: One more delete-vote needed.
 
5:52 AM
@amWhy More PSQs here: 1, 2.
 
6:02 AM
@Did @amWhy @ZacharySelk @XanderHenderson @ProfessorVector: This cheater also posts PSQs: 1 and 2.
 
6:16 AM
@JohnMa: You asked me whether I think this user is a sincere learner. Let's look at the facts: (1) flower has been visiting the site quite frequently ever since lulu's comment. (2) flower did not bother to answer Mehrdad's comment, nor lulu's first comment.
(3) flower merely waited until a complete answer came along, and then the only comment he/she posted was "thank you". (4) The question is clearly an olympiad-style question, so while it is highly likely not to be homework, it is sheer laziness to not even substitute −2,−1,0,1,2 and observe some stuff.
@JohnMa: Note that your comment that you would not leave the site is yet another data point in my favour; namely that sincere learners will not be 'harmed' by quick deletion of PSQs. =)
It's not proof (you should know I know better than to claim it as proof), but I haven't seen disproof.
@JohnMa: By the way, I'm so lenient that I will close both eyes on this post, which I just came across when I saw this funny post (probably accidental).
 
6:41 AM
First, I appreciate your choice of bringing this discussion about that particular user into chat (For a more general discussion, I prefer to always do it on meta).
And I DO very appreciate your effort to post an answer, to (sort of) represent some voices from CRUDE.
Go back to that user. For (1),(2),(3), from the point of view of a new user, that's exactly what they are supposed to do: MSE is a QA site, so people post questions and wait for answers. After they got an answer, they say thank you and leave.
But of course to us this is bad: we know that MSE is more than a QA site, although the setting of SE doesn't reflect that. So we close their questions and tell them they are wrong.
 
@JohnMa (2) is certainly not what a user on Math SE is supposed to do.
And you ought to be aware that every new user who clicks on "ask a question" is immediately presented with a popup instructions box telling them how to ask a good question.
(Unless the site has dramatically changed since I last tried that option out.)
And remember you asked me about sincerity in learning, so site norms are completely irrelevant, especially since laziness is clear here.
 
For (2): this is a QA site and is NOT a forum. I don't see how new users are supposed to respond to comment, since comment is not answer (they are new).
 
6:56 AM
@JohnMa Look they get pinged when people comment on their question. They also can use their two big eyeballs to observe some writing appearing below their question.
2
 
And I logged in my wifi in my school for several months and I never read the terms and conditions, do you? (Of course if I got into trouble I have no one to blame, my point is that adding a link before they ask question is not that useful for educational purpose)
 
If they don't, they're plain lazy.
@JohnMa I did read the terms before I started using the site.
By the way, you are essentially supporting my point, namely that if people do not follow rules/guidelines and those are applied to them, they have no one to blame. So why are those who apply the rules/guidelines so severely criticized?
2
@JohnMa And I read every single EULA before installing a program, and the rules for each of my schools, and whatever else. You pick the wrong person to ask that kind of question.
By the way, as I keep telling you, I try to be lenient whenever a single tiny bit of effort is shown. So I'm not a stickler for rules, but I expect effort.
 
7:13 AM
I am supporting the fact that new users should be taught about how they should behaves. Closing IS the way to do it, and I do not see that you are criticized for closing question (in that meta thread). The comments under your meta answer is mostly about the quick deletion, that at least fails the educational purpose. We give them the chance to learn, by asking them to edit the answer.
And whether or not you are lenient about "effort" is again not my concern.
I am concerned about the quick closure.
deletion*
:43040597
 
8:16 AM
I don't see any point in continuing, as my points about sincerity in learning, laziness and rules/guidelines all stand uncontested.
@Did @ZacharySelk: I think this post is not worthy of deletion. (The asker states what he/she does know in the question, and also adds a bit more in a comment.)
The asker of this question had added context after prompting, and needs some more reopen-votes.
 
 
3 hours later…
11:39 AM
@user21820 Now reopened - revisions/timeline. One of the votes came from the reopen review queue.
 
@MartinSleziak Thanks for the update!
 
11:51 AM
@JohnMa You're a voice from CRUDE, too.
 
12:04 PM
@XanderHenderson Yes, indeed, you can then cast delete votes on questions, not yet on answers.
 
12:26 PM
Exactly as amWhy said, the privilege to cast delete votes on answers comes at 20k: math.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/trusted-user
I will add that already at lower reputation user can choose "recommend deletion" in low quality posts review queue. If enough users recommend deletion, this also leads to deleting of the answer - although the deletion is a bit weaker than through delete votes by 20k+ users.
 
@MartinSleziak Thanks for linking!
 
 
3 hours later…
3:39 PM
 
 
1 hour later…
4:57 PM
In need of closure here
Also see this question posted by the same user. Note the others posted in the OP's profile here
 
5:24 PM
PSQ, closed, open for deletion. The asker has not made any effort whatsoever to improve the question.
 
 
1 hour later…
6:30 PM
Hello, I've recently come across this question, which got closed. But I don't see a clear reason why. The question is trivial and elementary, but the user presents his thoughts. Thus, if the question deserves closure for some reason I am not seeing, I think "lack of context" is not the correct reason.
 
@AloizioMacedo Hi!. I took a look at the question, and it seems it had been edited. I have now voted to reopen the question.
To reopen the post, @AloizioMacedo, will require 5 users to vote to reopen it, just like it took five users to close it. Now we have 2 reopen votes, but we'll need three more. So try to be patient! (Most of us aren't here 'round the clock!) Thanks for posting!
 
6:49 PM
@amWhy No problem! Thanks for the quick attention.
 
@Did, @user21820, @ZacharySelk, @all, Keep an eye out for this user. I have a strong sense that this is a sockpuppet account of some rep-hunting user; Their answers are not at all strong, but they've been pounding out answers anyway; they're also on an editing spree. My suspicions are raised, because after a comment I left them, the left a few indicating they've been around awhile, (comments since deleted).
Even if not a "sock-puppet", their answer spree (not high in quality), and their edit spree, and the attitude I encountered still make this user someone to keep an eye on.
 
7:40 PM
@user21820 Can you believe this question was asked yet again?. This has since been deleted.
I think we need to come up with an "Open letter to students with homework problems" and tweak it for addressing specifically, math students.
@Jack Hello!! You're one of the voices of Crude, as well. Welcome back!
 
8:21 PM
This question is open for deletion, and it's fully closed, to boot!
 
 
2 hours later…
10:00 PM
 
10:10 PM
One more delete vote needed on Feb 10 question
 
10:59 PM
Hello, @XanderHenderson
Oops, @XanderHenderson Looks like I missed you...
 

« first day (2235 days earlier)      last day (542 days later) »