@amWhy @Did @ZacharySelk @XanderHenderson: This rubbish answer on that thread has 2 stupid upvotes. Please help to delete, thanks! =)

PSQs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

6, 7, 8, 9, 10.

a, b (both unclear and without context).

@user21820 The poster really does not seem to know what "polynomial" and "proof" mean. Gone.

@quid @ProfessorVector @GabrielRomon @JohnMa @CarlMummert: Why is such a poor question being reopened? The asker is clearly a PSQ factory (see here) as well.

@user21820 somehow OP got lucky. I would not worry about it right now.

What I mean is let is fizzle out now. If you still care in two weeks close it then. Should cause less friction.

@quid Of course we know that. My point (perhaps too subtle) is that it is yet another instance of the frequent problem that bad questions are encouraged and nobody admits it, and when they are deleted some start claiming that we should not be so quick, giving the excuse that the asker needs time to see the notice about the guidelines, though those people actually do not care about the guidelines. Also, letting it stay around will just give it more drive-by upvotes, further encouraging it.

@Did @amWhy @ZacharySelk @XanderHenderson: And not surprisingly, I can easily prove my point above. I just went to the HNQ list and found these poor questions: 1, 2. For both these users, it is clear that they have been repeatedly posting lousy questions, such as 3, 4.

@user21820 That sounds rather dismissive, if you don't mind me saying.

@amWhy I don't mind you saying, but I can't identify which point you are referring to that you think sounds dismissive.

@quid In response to your inability to identify what I am referring to, I wouldn't worry about it. Gotta go now.

@amWhy: You pinged me rather than quid. Lol.

Worth looking at math.stackexchange.com/q/2701807

@CarlMummert Wow that spherical triangle is one rude fellow.

C'est la vie

Another PSQ.

@user21820 Oops, sorry!

Oh, so my comment to @user21820 was dismissive. I did not intend to be dismissive. I answered the question and gave some advice. Anyway by now the Q is closed.

Let's hope it stays like that

This PSQ should be closed. The asker states in their profile that they are "a former professor at MIT"?

@quid For what it's worth, I did not find your comment dismissive. Yes let's hope it stays closed.

Again, apologies to @user21820, and also to @quid for replying to the wrong post...

@amWhy The asker has just added a little bit, but I'm not sure whether that should be considered enough for a professor at MIT.

=P

@user21820 thanks for the reply. In response to your longer comment above, yes. Still my point of view is that it is not efficient to focus on some outliers that are currently popular. I did not always think like this but this is my current opinion.

Also, I think to close it once was a good idea. What I wanted to caution against was enter into a back-and-forth. But maybe it won't happen anyway and I was overly cautious.

@quid In principle you are right that outliers are outliers. However, you may wish to consider that it is precisely the HNQs that get noticed by the general public who visit Math SE. They see for themselves that lousy questions are given free passes so frequently. They also frequently try to grab a slice of the cake before the HNQ gets closed.

I'm sure you're aware that many HNQs attract as many lousy answers as good ones, even for good questions!

@quid Yea we can't back-and-forth close because the system won't let us. =)

@user21820 Ahh, yes, I see now. Thanks for pointing this out!

@amWhy Same user posts this other lousy question and cannot seem to read what he/she posted after Jack pointed out that Feynmann ≠ Freyman.

@user21820 Yeah, I saw that one too!

@user21820 yes. Fortunately @amWhy had edited it of the list.

See y'all.

@quid Oh I forgot we could do that!

See you!

Please see this question. The OP has already asked the same question earlier: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2701350/…;. Many reasons for it to be closed.

This PSQ remains unimproved despite the asker seeing the close-banner for at least 10 hours (see the comments) but not responding to requests to improve the question.

@user21820 I was the first delete vote (or second?)

This user has asked nothing but psq's. Two such questions asked today, and their history of psq's is unsurprising.

'Sup, bro!

Clearly, all mathematicians are male.

And prefer to be addressed in a slangy, informal, overly familiar manner. :\

This is not a terrible question, I guess, but I don't understand why it is worth of 36 upvotes. If I ever decide to ask a question, I am going to claim to be an 8th grader, and ask about the clever thing that my daughter has figured out. That seems to be the way to get XPs.

@XanderHenderson Nor does the accepted answer deserve 110 upvotes.

This looks like a PSQ to me, and my attempts to get the OP to fix it are being derailed by a brain fart on my part.

that user seems to be prone to PSQish questions, too

This unclear PSQ is probably best closed. There have been no answers posted, either.

Anyone heard of tropical scalar multiplication?.

I have!

I know about tropical geometry!

@XanderHenderson tropical scalar multiplication?

sure, why not?

that would be scalar multiplication over a tropical geometrical object

right?

@amWhy arxiv.org/abs/math/0601041

I know about tropical geometry. (See my comment here seeking clarification from OP). But the OP selected linear algebra and algebra as tags, so I'm not sure exactly what the OP is referring to, though, @Xander, your last comment may apply.

@Did thanks for that link.

The OP who asked this psq has posted 2 bare psq's beforehand. Three posts in all.

After a period of relative quiescence, two producers of BS are back in full mode: RF, on Collatz (the Haupt crank-magnet), as usual, and BC, on basically every misconception one can form about the basic objects of probability theory (despite literally tons of comments spent to explain the topic to the character). Do not get dragged into exhausting exchanges...

Is "The question you are attempting to edit is terrible. Don't bother editing, just vote to close," a legitimate reason to reject a proposed edit? ;)

@XanderHenderson Hahahaha...I love it!