PSQ which lacks context, should be closed and deleted.

A comment was left asking for clarification months ago, but not a peep.

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Offensive answer detected, potentially bad keyword in answer, toxic answer detected: Use the definition of derivative to compute $dy/dx$, given $y=x+x^{-1}$ by RUB SHIT ON THE TOILET SEAT on math.SE

1, 2, 3, 4

5, 6, 7, 8

9

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Offensive answer detected, toxic answer detected: Show that $ z \sin(z) = 1 $ has only real solutions.* by Pauleberber on math.SE

This is why we have a problem with PSQs.

A poor question was asked, and obtained two answers in a very short amount of time

and now one of the answerers is defending the poor question on the grounds that the intention was obvious

(even if it is impossible to tell that saulspatz's answer was not the intended answer until after substantial editing)

(That question should, in my opinion, be closed, bee tee dubs).

g'night

@user21820 Now deleted. Unpinning.

This is probably a duplicate of something (I'm looking), but is on the HNQ and has already attracted at least one poor (UPVOTED) answer.

@XanderHenderson Already, like four answers!

Urgh... the "proof-verification" tag makes it very hard to find a good dupe target

but they basically are looking for a proof of Dini, and there are tons of those on MSE

@XanderHenderson I am not sure they are duplicates, but they are definitely closely related: uniformly convergence on compact metric space and Does a continuous point-wise limit imply uniform convergence?

@MartinSleziak Yeah, I found the first one, but, as I said above, the "proof-verification" tag makes me hesitant to vote-to-close

Maybe also: Assume that the function $f(x)$ is continuous and $\lim_{n\to\infty}f_n(x)=f(x)$. Does this imply that $f_n(x)$ is uniform convergent?

I had not found the second one. Thanks

@XanderHenderson But the post you linked does not have (proof-verification) tag...?

(the original question was not originally tagged proof-verification, but it should have been)

You are correct---I was fixing that as you were typing ;)

The original question is clearly asking for a verification

so, I think, it is different question?

Well, now that you have changed it...

Yeah, but I think it fits with the original intent of the original asker

Gah... ninja'd by a better comment. :P

@XanderHenderson Let the OP take care of declaring intention; don't add what you do not know, that the OP has not declared. Just as I do not like answerers interpreting a question (perhaps differently from others, and never stated by the OP, to edit a post to put into the ops mouth what they meant), as you complained about above.

@XanderHenderson Specifically, just as you felt frustrated as expressed in your comments here.

I mean, why be concerned with that question and its edits, when you've unilaterally decided what the OP meant so much so as to edit the OPs post to make imply the OP requested proof verification?

I don't see that I am putting words in the OP's mouth. They gave most of a proof, and are asking where the error is. The tag description for proof-verification says "For questions concerning a specific proof or a specific solution, asking for verification, identifying errors, suggestions for improvement, etc. (You should not use this tag if the question does not contain your proposed proof/solution.)" (emphasis mine).

The OP has already noted that they themselves verified the proof was incorrect. Another tag, like proof explanation, or a request for help to find where they went wrong, not whether they are wrong or right, isn't about asking for verification of the proof.

hence the emphasized bit of text above

@XanderHenderson I'm not going to counter that (or rather, I rolled back to your last edit). I don't agree with it, but it's not worth my "strong arming" the matter by undoing your decision and action.

This user has deleted two downvoted posts in the last hour. Most of her remaining posts have been PSQ's. Perhaps in the end, she's just making her own bed, given poor posts, downvotes, deleted downvoted-questions, and such. E.g. here, just minutes ago.

Actually, she deleted the post after its being closed as a duplicate of a question she already asked, which received two answers.

@DanielFischer The user I linked immediately above has been asking some really low quality questions, like the duplicate and original of the linked question immediately above. Just an FYI (or a comment I can refer to later).

@amWhy Why? Why do people do that? I sort of understand re-asking a question if one doesn't get any answers. But there have been answers. Why?

@DanielFischer I don't know Why? Your the mod, you should know EVERYTHING, right? :P

@amWhy I should indeed. And in order to extend my knowledge I ask.

(I didn't expect that anybody in here knows, but asking can't harm, right?)

@DanielFischer Well, from a psychological viewpoint, I could speculate, but with an interview I could form some theoretically sound speculations! You're right, asking why is most of what my username is about! No harm in asking, right.

@user21820 All of S, T, U have been closed. If that is sufficient, then unpin your July 9 notice. Else, S has already been deleted, without a vote to delete from you, and each of T, U have one delete vote, and on neither of them have you voted to delete. I did ping you yesterday about at least one of them being open for deletion.

I have a problem with edits like this one. I find it to be a trivial (almost going out of the editor's way to find something to edit). Am I too critical here?

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword with email in answer, pattern-matching email in answer: An interesting question by marian on math.SE

1, 2, 3, 4

5, 6, 7

@amWhy I would even go so far as to say that the edit is not a good one. Why should 3D be TeXified? D is not a variable in that setting

I think you were right to reject.

I think that there are some people who view any improvement, no matter how marginal, as acceptable, and I think that there are some people who don't know typesetting. It seems that the approving reviewer is in the intersection of those groups. ;)

@XanderHenderson yeah, heh.

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Offensive answer detected, toxic answer detected: Classifying a degenerate point by Олександр Федорович on math.SE

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Manually reported answer: Classifying a degenerate point by Олександр Федорович on math.SE

@XanderHenderson Same user suggesting an edit that provides no improvement; i.e. it's trivial. math.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/1039176

Oi...

@XanderHenderson Thanks. I've posted two separate comments below the questions on which their suggested edits were rejected. From what I understand, those suggesting edits are pingable via a comment below the question they try to edit. Next time I'll either flag a mod, or else I'll post on meta complaining about a significant portion of their suggested edits.

I would hope with enough rejected suggested edits, they should be, or soon should be, facing a temporary ban on suggesting edits.

Need undelete votes for the OP's self-deleted but correct answer at math.stackexchange.com/questions/2849806/prove

I am kind of surprised, but as far as I can tell, this question is not a duplicate of anything else (I spent some time trying to find a target before answering).

Perhaps my query is insufficient?

I am surprised, as well, @XanderHenderson. the link to "this question" is actually a link to your answer, but I figured out how to find the question from there! :-)

Hello, @TheoBendit !

Also, Hello, @JackozeeHakkiuz !