I swear that I have seen this HNQ, like, a bazillion times... Why can't I find a dupe target? >_<

@XanderHenderson Why do we need so many trigonometric definitions? looks related

I knew I'd seen it before.

Thanks, @YuiToCheng

@rschwieb: I've noticed a recurring issue: Some users don't understand the SE system, but are quick blame other users for perceived slights. For example, the close-banner is only shown after the 5th close-voter votes, and close-voters are not informed when a question is edited, and they may have voted to close before a question is improved. Maybe the SE system can be improved, so that people don't keep assuming bad faith in such cases.

C1, C2, C3.

D1, D2, D3.

D4, D5, D6.

D7, D8, D9.

D10, D11, D12.

For closure: c1

For deletion: d1, d2, d3, d4, d5, d6

c2, c3, c4

d7

One more close-vote.

@user21820 up for deletion

@Saad all gone

@TheSimpliFire Thanks. Need to wait a few days or something.

@user21820 It's a good suggestion. Although I expect, in some cases, it is simply a failure of personality that nothing on the site is going to fix.

@XanderHenderson You used to work as an archaeologist? That's rad.

@rschwieb From what did you deduce that?

@user21820 "Completely unrelated, but physical log tables have actually lead to at least one important discovery in mathematics: Benford's Law. As someone who used to work as an archaeologist, I sometimes morn the loss of our physical implements. :\ – Xander Henderson 10 hours ago" link

Wow. That's nice. I actually know an archaeologist! Who knew!

@rschwieb I did. I worked for the BLM and the Forest Service doing archaeological survey in the Great Basin and Sierras.

Also... "rad"? We must have grown up at about the same time. I haven't heard that word in years.

@XanderHenderson I haven't heard that word in years (but yea I heard it before). And I haven't even used it before hahaha..

@user21820 Radical, man!

Wow, how's that possible; you replied to my future message.

=D

Mainstream calculus is never rigorous

@YuiToCheng That's not even the main problem. "Contrary to popular academics belief, there is no valid construction of real numbers." is the smoke from the fire.

Fire is put out now.

@XanderHenderson yeah, it's a throwback we toss around my office a bit. Like when we encounter some weird inexplicably bad software problem. Here I'm using it in its positive 1980's sense though.

cv-pls fractals Too Broad Methods to draw fractals‭ - supremum‭ 2019-04-18 06:52:01Z (Also, unclear; also, lacking context. Pretty sure it is a dupe, too.)

I think revision 7 of this question is a gratuitous use of editing powers. AFAIK, extensive rewrites of questions to suit our tastes is not a commonly acceptable practice. I'm curious to know what you all think.

The user was using incorrect terminology so I corrected it, so I do not understand your objection at all.

Since that is commonly used as a dupe target, it is important that it employ correct terminology.

@BillDubuque Extensive rewrites of questions are frequently rejected, even if they are pretty much equivalent. The impression of hijacking the question is generally to blame.

At any rate, i’m not making any suggestion for what should be done, just seeking impressions from others.

I’d wager that such an edit would never pass the revision review queue, had it been subject to that.

@rschwieb So you'd prefer to leave it with incorrect snd misleading terminology? The mind boggles... Of course you and I rarely agree on anything so this comes as no surprise.

The question is the same as it was, except now it uses correct terminology, so I don't understand at all why you insist on making such a big fuss about it.

PSQ.