12:01 AM
@Xander, did you see the op's responses here? I pretty much went through everything you did in your answer, at least a half hour before you, in comments. The op has acted pretty belligerent in response to corrections, suggestions. Why do you think that repeating what's said in the comments, in an answer, changes what the OP has already been told, yet refuses to accept? That's the main reason I linked to the post here.

12:38 AM
@amWhy I saw the link to the question, and assumed that is was a PSQ in need of closing; it doesn't read as a PSQ to me, and in fact reads like a genuine question about an all too common error that elementary students have. I didn't read the comments and answered the question assuming good faith.
Now that I have read the comments, I agree that the original questioner is being a belligerent ass, but I don't think that changes the fact that the original question is reasonably well posed, and deserving of an answer.

@XanderHenderson But the correct answer was previously given, consistent with your later answer, but it was rejected by the asker. You're free to answer and in answering, encourage such askers to repeat the same behavior elsewhere. I can't stop you for doing that. But I don't have to agree with your repeat of an answer already given.

@amWhy The only other answer that I see is a two-liner, which points out where the error is, but doesn't really explain what the error is, or why one line is correct while the other isn't.
I was seeking to provide a more pedagogical answer.

@XanderHenderson There is (are) answers in the comments. In particular, my comments. You're free to put an answer in an "answer post" to cater to a belligerent user, even before reading other answers and the comments from an OP, but you're likely going to look like.... ummm.... Pedagogical answers? That sounds like BD talking. Cheers!

I read the other answer, and was not impressed (for the reasons I gave above).
And I don't know what you mean by "BD".
Again, the question itself is clear and not an unreasonable question (as it exemplifies a very common kind of error), and the only other answer that I saw was one that I found quite lacking. Since I felt that I could provide a better answer to the question (as it was posed), I took the 10 minutes to do so.

12:53 AM
@XanderHenderson Sometimes they are discouraged. But at times when a belligerent user asks a belligerent question, answers belligerently to a comment, many of us are not inclined to reinforce such belligerent askers by handing them a step by step solution, for which you can likely expect no response/appreciation from the asker, except a belligerent challenge.. But, you are free to answer such questions, and reinforce such behavior. I don't have to like it though.

2 hours later…
2:31 AM
I have tried to edit 2665553: Calculating the summation$\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{H_{n+1}}{n(n+1)}$. Further improvements are more than welcome.
There are already a few related comments under robjohn's undelete requst. I definitely would not mind if the discussion continued in chat - in fact, looking at the length of the comment thread, I am a bit surprised that moving the discussion to chat was not offered to me when I added the most recent comment.
Several experienced users have joined the discussion (cumulatively above 700k reputation points). If bunch of veterans of the site is not able to create a question which counts as sufficient enough context, I doubt a newbie has a chance. (Although it is not clear whether all users who joined that discussion are willing to contribute some suggestions how the question can be improved.)
Looking at the current revision of the question and at the comments under robjohn's post: 1. Perhaps the last two links could be omitted, they do not add too much. 2. Probably it would better to omit the generalization. If a question is posted in this form, the answerers would be tempted to answer the generalization rather than the original question.
I will add two comment from the discussion under robhojn's post which made me at least try to look for ways how the question can be improved - I hope that some other users will join the effort.
Your giving a hint instead of a full answer is good in my opinion, but you are a moderator, and should not be encouraging poor question generators. I'm sure you can see all the poor questions generated by this one user even till recently. If you like this question very much, you could easily post a new Q&A pair of your own with high quality, instead of leaving junk posted by others around. After all, the SE system does explicitly encourage (on the Ask-A-Question page) you to share your knowledge in the Q&A format if you are inclined to. No? =) — user21820 11 hours ago
Especially the second part of the above comment: " If you like this question very much, you could easily post a new Q&A pair of your own with high quality, instead of leaving junk posted by others around. After all, the SE system does explicitly encourage (on the Ask-A-Question page) you to share your knowledge in the Q&A format if you are inclined to. No? =)"
@user21820 suggested reposting a better version. I have additional suggestion: We could use the existing question (visible for 10k+ users) as a place where some kind of draft of this better question can be made. (And the changes can be then reverted if/when the new question is posted.) I have added at least links to somewhat related questions. If there are further suggestion what else can be added so that the question no longer lacks context, they are more than welcome. (Ideally something which explains why the question should be considered interesting/useful.) — Martin Sleziak 8 hours ago

3:33 AM
nothing I post is good enough. I am sick of these cute little games you elitists play, you are bullies, I JUST WANT SOME HELP. why is nothing I ask a good enough question?

4:21 AM
This answer is of low quality.

4:46 AM
@XanderHenderson There is now a post on meta related to this particular answer (as you probably noticed): On bibliographic references.

Then the original answerer responded to my comment in the original thread in a way that seemed argumentative, in seeming contradiction to the support that I gave to the original answer.
I'm pretty much ready to wash my hands of the whole thing... too much ego involved. :\
Alternatively, I am tempted to vote-to-close the original question as overly broad.

5:30 AM
Related fact: If all PSQs are immediately closed and deleted, we would get rid of 99% of cheating attempts. — user21820 4 mins ago
3

10 hours later…
3:48 PM
You altered the question, @MartinSleziak, to an extent that it would have been better for you to post the question you authored, and let the one authored by Young, die. It is no longer Young's question; Are we to start a precedence of changing questions so that another's answer is justified? The biggest contributors to PSQ-no-effort questions are those who answer them, and those who edit posts so that the answers remain. You joined the latter group.
@MartinSleziak You are suggesting that some of us could have (and should have) improved the question. Why should we, or you, do that. RobJohn's a big boy, and knows better than to answer a no-effort-PSQ. Just because he whines because his answer was deleted, doesn't obligate anyone to improve the question. RobJohn could have done so, but chose not to do so, but instead, whine.
@XanderHenderson Come October 2018, you'll know who BD is.

@amWhy Yes, and robjohn is some of us.
@amWhy If you read the comments, you have seen that my intent was not to change the OP's post but use the delete post as a draft for new question posted by someone else.

4:03 PM
@MartinSleziak I'm sorry, I guess I must not be "one of us." I tried to follow your comments, but they were difficult to follow. Perhaps I should not speak when I find something questionable. Particularly when I get a sarcastic response from you.

Which was exactly the user21820's suggestion and also the solution he advocates in similar situations.
I will definitely not blame you if you revert my edits and close and delete the question.
I did my best to improve the question, I asked other users whether they have suggestions how it can be improved.
You can use your best judgement what to do next.
To add the context to amWhy's comments above, amWhy is talking about the question 2665553: Calculating the summation$\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{H_{n+1}}{n(n+1)}$ (revisions/timeline).
This question was brought up in robjohn's undelete/reopen request.

I simply was unclear why you edited. The question as is is ultimately seen as Young's question. Which it is not. That's what I object to. If you wanted to do this, you could have posted the edit as a new question. Young is currently suspended because of their prolonged habit of posting only poor quality PSQ's and other very low quality questions; by problem is with the asker, and so I have a problem with making the asker appear to have asked a better question. I won't undo your work.

Feel free to revert my edit then.

@user21820 suggested reposting a better version. I have additional suggestion: We could use the existing question (visible for 10k+ users) as a place where some kind of draft of this better question can be made. (And the changes can be then reverted if/when the new question is posted.) I have added at least links to somewhat related questions. If there are further suggestion what else can be added so that the question no longer lacks context, they are more than welcome. (Ideally something which explains why the question should be considered interesting/useful.) — Martin Sleziak 22 hours ago

4:11 PM
@MartinSleziak I've already told you "I won't undo your work." I'm not here to pick fights, nor to destroy good intentioned work, despite how I'm too conveniently portrayed. And that's precisely (your last comment before the quote you post) why I suggested you're being sarcastic.

You mean: "Feel free to revert my edit then."? That was by no means meant sarcastic, it was meant seriously - if you think that that is right course of action, I have no problem with that.
After all, the old revisions are available if somebody (robjohn?) wants to post the same question anew, with added context. (As originally suggested.)

But the question, posted by Young was never "interesting/useful". So why should we change history? If you want to rewrite history, I think that's a problem. It's like asking us to filter out very relevant factors, and "let's pretend" that the questions asked is something we create, and ignore the fact that the merits of the original question call into question answers posted.
2

user21820 advocates reposting questions with "answers be saved" (for lack of the better phrased) For example: Good answers on poor questions.
They made the exact the same suggestion here.
robjohn's opinion clearly is that the answers here are useful - so it might be worth the effort to post the question anew with more context.
I tried to help the process. I hoped that some of other users in that conversation join in.
I hope you noticed that, but I'll explicitly point out that I did not vote to undelete the question.

I'm not @user21820, now, am I? Good answers? on poor questions? I think that's largely an oxymoron. But, it seems that what has been decided by some is that we need to create a question so that the answerers who answered one of the most prolific writers of PSQ's ever, on this site, can have their answers preserved by moving them to a question such that the question is answered by all the answerers. Basically, catering to robjohn and his whining.
@MartinSleziak I am not questioning your position. You are as even-handed as they come. I simply get frustrated that all too often on the site, only the sqeakiest of wheels get oiled. And that frustrates me; and it only encourages askers and answerers alike to come to meta to whine and squeak their reals to the tune of "injustice" and appealing to pity, in order to have their way. And when other users oblige, it frustrates me all the more.

I don't think that I really have much to add. I have tried to explain how I see it from my side. We both know that we have very different position.

4:27 PM
@MartinSleziak They aren't so different as you claim. You don't have a clue to my positions on things. So please don't assume you know that I'm so different than you.

The outcome be glad to see here would be that robjohn (or basically anyone) posts a new question. And I would be really happy to see other user helping with improving that question. (Still, at least they gave suggestions it the comment, which I tried to follow when editing.)
I think we have rather different positions on many things. I might be wrong. But at least in this situation we clearly see things differently.

@MartinSleziak Indeed. I agree.

I meant to write: "The outcome I would be glad to see...."

@MartinSleziak I think the reality of the situation is that you have convinced yourself that we have different positions on many things; and as a result, you respond to me differently than you respond and address the vast majority of users. That is perplexing to me, how gracious you are to almost all.... but it seems you can't or won't interact with me in a similar manner. When I have been judged, the judges of me tend to become incapable of relating with me in any other manner than judging me.
In any case, @MartinSleziak , I do appreciate your work and dedication to this site.

I see this differently, but I'd prefer not go into this. (At least not right now.)
I'll try to keep in mind your complaint (I am not sure whether that is the right word). I am not really sure what more to add there.
I see the question has now two delete votes. I'd prefer to abstain from voting on reopening/closing or deleting/undeleting that question.
It has already been suggested by user21820, but still - if the question gets deleted I am going to suggest once again in the comments that robjohn - who initiated this - could (should) post the new version of the question. (Well, unless somebody is faster and posts such comment before me.)

4:42 PM
@user480172 What is this about? If you have a sincere question, e.g., about a question you asked, please discuss it with us. Name-calling and other comments posted out of anger or frustration will likely only antagonize many of those who would rather talk with you, and help us all to move forward.
@MartinSleziak That's fine by me, @MartinSleziak, provided a new question is asked, and not that a new question continually replaces Young's question.

4:54 PM
@Did @amWhy @XanderHenderson: Upcoming semi-crank post.

@user21820 Yikes!

5:13 PM
@MartinSleziak: it has once again been deleted. — robjohn ♦ 4 mins ago
@robjohn If I may suggest (and you can see both from the comments above and the discussion in chat that several users find this a reasonable solution), maybe posting a new question would be way to go. And since you are the user who started this thread, you seems to be natural candidate for the poster of the question. (It goes without saying that you're free to use any material comes from my edits - I have explicitly stated a few comments above that my edits are done with the intention to created a draft for the new question.) — Martin Sleziak 47 secs ago