PSQ.

I don't know if it merits closure

but it is a poor audit question :\

It is also evidence that PSQs can exist at all levels

I'm not sure that I see the value of this answer. Or am I just missing something obvious?

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in answer, bad keyword in link text in answer, blacklisted website in answer, pattern-matching website in answer, potentially bad keyword in answer: Difference between Norm and Distance by robertwright on math.SE

math.stackexchange.com/questions/2848305/… PSQ

@amWhy, @AlexanderGruber, Thanks for the confidence. I don't think I'm in a place to rerun. I'm still processing everything that happened. Not ruling it out in the foreseeable future though. Here's a teaser piece of (unconfirmed) information: when I discussed my situation with mods from other SE sites, I was told that an elected but resigned moderator can simply ask for their diamond back. I didn't check with the CMs but the people who said that have been around...

1) IMHO it would not be wise for me to consider that route. Not now. Not soon. May be later. 2) But, if Arthur Fischer or Willie Wong feels like recommitting, it is nice to know that in theory there should exist an easy way to do that. 3) The option is not available to a former diamond mod who was booted out. I'm sure I don't need to spell that out.

@JyrkiLahtonen I don't think Arthur is coming back. :(

@XanderHenderson re-open Has the question 2836085 How to calculate a negative feedback loop? been sufficiently improved to be reopened? Here is revision before being closed, in the next revision the OP added their own attempt. One of the original closers voted to reopen in the review.

I dont understand a downvote to my question? can this room help in this regard?

@BAYMAX If you post your question, we might give you some feedback. But in general it is hard to guess the reason behind a single action.

Thanks for looking but here -

@BAYMAX I believe that this was intention behind creating Constructive feedback chat room (and Why the downvote? before that). But neither of the rooms was frequented that much. (The latter is now frozen.)

Oh I see

1, 2, 3, 4

5, 6, 7, 8

math.stackexchange.com/q/2848638/29335 Another person asking what they, personally, should do to study their random list of topics

PSQ math.stackexchange.com/q/2848647/29335

PSQ math.stackexchange.com/questions/2848589/…

math.stackexchange.com/q/2848615/29335 Asks "should I learn form books or from PDF's?" and then asks for book recommendations for five fields for which there undoubtedly questions with lots of recommendations already.

@MartinSleziak Indeed. It looks much better now. It seems that it has already been reopened, but I would have voted to reopen, anyway. :)

Indeed, it has been reopened: revisions/timeline.

1, 2, 3, 4

5, 6, 7, 8

9, 10‌​, 11, 12

13, 14, 15, 16

17

Very low quality question needs closure, then deletion.

Could I have more opinions about this question, please? An answer to this older question by yours truly settled this as a by-product. In my opinion it is a dupe (so I CWfied my stub answer), but I'm not sure it fits the criteria discussed e.g. here. I am uncertain about how to apply e.g. @MartinSleziak's criteria.

Oops, @JyrkiLahtonen. I expressed my "opinion" in a vote to delete the new question you linked to as a dupe of your answer to the older question, not paying attention to the tags, and hence, it was dupe-hammered closed as a dupe. I'm fine with its closure, and if others decide differently, they are free to vote to reopen the newer post.

In particular, @MartinSleziak, your input is most welcome, in response to @JyrkiLahtonen.

@JyrkiLahtonen yeah, no doubt, take a break. I think you'll have a better chance at working on the problems that bother you most without having the diamond force you to act in an official capacity all the time.

@JyrkiLahtonen Also chiming in on this: You were an excellent mod; you were and are now and excellent user. I respect your decision. Just had to show my appreciation for your work, and another vote of confidence. No need to justify your decision!

I think this answer is essentially, a generic comment that could be written as a comment to any sort of verification question asked on this site, which never addresses the actual content in the question, and hence is ought to be deleted as an answer.

This question is both unclear and potentially too broad. It should likely be put hold, hoping the asker then improves his/her post.