@amWhy Already did.

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Offensive answer detected, potentially bad keyword in answer, toxic answer detected (159): Find the order of $\sqrt{3}\in \mathbb{R}$ and $\sqrt{3}\in \mathbb{R}^{*}$. by adma on math.SE

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in answer, blacklisted website in answer, pattern-matching website in answer, potentially bad ip for hostname in answer, potentially problematic ns configuration in answer (260): How to find measurements of angle CBD? by kristyodriguez on math.SE

duplicates These posts seem close to each other: 1706711: Limit exists or not? $\lim \limits_{n \to\infty}\ \left[n-\frac{n}{e}\left(1+\frac{1}{n}\right)^n\right]$, 1093534: How do I find this limit: $\lim_{n\to\infty} \left[ n-{n\over e}\left(1+{1\over n}\right)^n \right]$?, ...

... 3107466: Evaluating $\lim_{n \to \infty} n\left(1-\frac{1}{e}\left(1+\frac{1}{n}\right)^{n} \right)$ and 3534946: How do I find the value of this limit: $\lim_{n \to \infty} [ n - \frac{n}{e} (1+\frac{1}{n})^n]$?.

I'm not really sure which of them looks best (concerning quality of the question and quality of the answer) and should be chosen as the duplicate target. (And maybe some of the answers are good enough to consider merging?)

In Is $1-3+5-7+\cdots$ equal or non-equal to $0$? the question author wonders why operating with divergent series gives “bizarre results” – any suggestion for a good duplicate target?

@user21820 Only D8 and D10 remain: each needs one more delete vote.

@amWhy: Thanks!

@MartinSleziak I simply voted to close with the oldest one as the duplicate target. (That might be the the most reasonable thing to do.)

merging It seems to me that the answers to this one are interesting: Evaluating $\lim_{n \to \infty} n\left(1-\frac{1}{e}\left(1+\frac{1}{n}\right)^{n} \right)$. So maybe if it gets closed, it could be merged (to make the answers more visible).

how is this a dupe?

needs details or clarity? rly?

@darijgrinberg I must admit that I did not choose the best target. This one is probably better.

@ArnaudD. Added as a dupe target.

@darijgrinberg I see absolutely no details or elaboration from the asker. Hence, the closure.

ok, that target's closer

ah, "needs detials" is the new "no context"

D1 @rschwieb Now that you agree it is a dupe after your edit, the question can be deleted, since everything in that answer is now in your answer in the linked dupe (and then some). It needs 2 delete votes.

@MartinSleziak There is also this even older question, although it is (implicitly) about functions rather than sequences.

Note that is has already been used as target for duplicates and merge a few times.

I have at least added the link in a comment - if somebody thinks that it would be better to choose two duplicate targets in those case, feel free to add also the question found by Arnaud D..

@BillDubuque This duplicate should remain undeleted because it is a valuable pointer to the better post. The rationale to close this question as a duplicate already lies in the borderlands of what most people (people in general, not necessarily in this room) would consider duplicate, and the title and content make it a good pointer, so there is no major impetus to delete.

@rschwieb We'll have to disagree on that too. The dupe adds nothing but noise since everything else in already in the prior question and answer. Btw, according to your prior mentioned standards, shouldn't you have explicitly pointed out - to use your own words - that you "have a stake in the matter", i.e. you gained 65 rep by duplicating your prior answer there.

Imho, the noble thing to do would be to agree to delete in that situation, since that's what happens in hundreds of similar instances in this room.

@BillDubuque Frankly I think the compromise that led to the current state is just fine. I would be happy for that to happen more often.

@rschwieb But you haven't "divested" the 65 rep you gained from duplicating your prior answer there. Certainly that must count as what you mean by "having a stake in the matter". In all the prior discussions on this you never disclosed such a "stake". But you have often critiqued others for not making such disclosures. As for "hundreds of similar instances" this refers to many other analogous deletions of dupes that have already occurred here.

As any long time reader knows, this room has suffered many accusations of bias - that it does not treat Q&As of its own members the same as it treats those of others (esp. those whose political views differ, e..g. those who don't believe that PSQs should be closed). If there is any hope of avoiding such perceptions of bias then it is essential to lead by example in matters like this.

If that were my dupe answer I would delete it without a moment of hesitation (and thank the user who helped locate the dupe).

Btw, for the record, there was prior discussion of the matter of duplication in the comments on that question, but it appears that someone flagged the discussion for deletion. So keep this in mind if you are perusing the history of the matter.

PS I have no idea what is meant by "according to your standards... I have divested myself of ownership and gain the moment it mattered, so your claim is wrong." Apparently one can be "wrong" about "standards" one doesn't even know they have!

@BillDubuque NO

@BillDubuque A good way of dealing with this is to avoid assuming the intentions of others or accusing them of bias. Let's try to keep it objective in here so that the temperature of the conversation stays comfortable.

@AlexanderGruber Sounds good! I just removed my extra sweater! :-)

@AlexanderGruber I like your hat! ;-)

@AlexanderGruber Please get the context straight. I merely posted some things that needed moderation. Then I was unfoundedly attacked by two users who have been doing the same for many years.

It was not I who accused others of being "unseemly" or "toxic" or taking actions based on "pet peeves". It is ridiculous that these ad hominem attacks are allowed to stand. It is impossible to use this room when one is subject to constant harassment like that.

@amWhy Please have the courtesy not to waste my time with pings like that.

@BillDubuque ditto

Btw, in case anyone missed it, said question can no longer be deleted since AmWhy just used her gold badge to reopen the question - one that both I and rschwieb closed as a dupe (after rschweieb invested much effort to make that work smoothly). This is the 2nd (or 3rd) time in recent days that AmWhy has attempted to reverse actions that I proposed here (all of which the community eventually agreed on).

I can see no good reason whatsoever to reopen that question. Nor was one supplied.

But it does thwart the proposed deletion.