@JitendraSingh I didn't see the message, but whatever it is, that's clearly not enough context. Please ask the same person how much time it takes to identify an AP once you know the definition : it's literally a matter of seconds. In fact, both brackets contain APs. The observation about APs is helpful because you can use the sum formula for APs, but if THIS was mentioned then you could argue about enough context. Not as it stands. Also, the question is gone now, thanks!

I see : the bad comment was removed by a flag. That was fast.

And :

Low quality answer

Given that the OP is quite informed there, this answer is about as appetizing as swallowing an anvil for dinner , followed by a mallet and a gold bracelet.

@amWhy English is not my mother tongue, so I'd excuse myself from it. Have fun :)

@RRL Only DI to DL needs one more vote each.

@jasmine When typing a link in parentheses, there shoule be no space between the left/right parenthesis and the link.

@amWhy Thanks

For deletion: D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7, D8, D9

For closure: C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6

Yet another bountied PSQ: B1

Irrational number PSQ: C7

PSQ

close this A_1

@Saad Got it

For deletion :D1

Please consider closing this question

C2

C3

C8

C4

C/D this duplicate

D - again just asked Wolfram and that was it :(

NAA: please vote to delete.

D

D

D

D

@TeresaLisbon Still posting CAS output without any explanation math.stackexchange.com/a/4181637/42969 :(

@MartinR within 24 hours of coming off a year-long suspension for low quality contributions too :((

@Peter A spamming user cost me 6 deletion votes and now I have none to cast :/

@MartinR If Graubner wasn't ready for the trickle, he will be obliterated by the rush.

Some user seems to be unaware that his question does not meet quality standards: math.stackexchange.com/questions/4181689/…

@Axel Thanks, plenty of responses are now on the page.

@TeresaLisbon You're welcome :)

PSQ

@Axel Self-deleted : but this one could come back easily!

This one can be deleted as well

@TeresaLisbon Well I guess now the OP realized why he got closed. I hope that his potential future posts will be of better quality.

@Axel Let's hope for the best!

Anyway I wish everyone here to spend a nice day.

Same to you!

Thanks!

Ah, well, the author decided to delete for now, it seems.

PSQ with 5 up votes

Here's another question to delete.

@TeresaLisbon False statement received an answer with several upvotes :(

@Peter Oh yes, I didn't even notice that!

Anyway, good to see it deleted.

@Saad now 6 upvotes

@Saad Another strange instance with similar topics here

@Saad One more delete vote needed.

Another instance here: please close.

Should I convert my comment here to an answer, or is it likely that the question will be closed?

@shoteyes Too late, the question is now closed. It was a poor question, with no context provided. Best not to provide answers in comments, nor in answer fields. That's what the Enforcement of Quality Standards is all about.

@amWhy Understood. I only ask because I left a comment on a different question the other day that apparently was enough to answer the question, and someone commented suggesting I write it as an answer instead. Unfortunately, I was asleep and someone else poached the answer instead 😬

@shoteyes No problem. I'm glad you asked!

How can the asker of this question with five dv, closed and of another closed question with four dvs, with no other questions or answers on record, have +15 in rep??

@Peter Can you please explain why you consider my question to be a duplicate? My question focuses on an interpretation of $0^0$ in the context of the affinely extended real number system. That's not something which is mentioned at all in the post that my question was marked as a duplicate of. I also asked why people downvoted it in the constructive feedback room, and the impression I got was that people were simply tired of seeing posts about $0^0$.

chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/58435958#58435958 ^^^^ Because they got 2 upvotes on their first question, and one on the question I linked. This, along with the meta post about an uptick in users answering in comments, seems precisely aimed to counter Maintaining Quality Standards. Too many clear cut PSQs are receiving unexplained, disproportional upvotes.

^^^@quid, @Xander ?

@Joe It is a long worn out question asked in all shapes and forms, and all possible contexts. And trying to find exceptions in the extended reals departs even further from the norm.

If anyone has any close votes left, consider closing this PSQ.

what? (please close)

@vitamind Down to 0. I also commented. And voted, in two ways.

This question really has 3 upvotes...

@vitamind Yes, indeed, with 6 subsequent downvotes. I was just reporting on the net score of the time of my last comment.

@vitamind Good work, on that cause!!

Thanks, now closed. Here is a pure integral psq.

@vitamind Dv'd and commented. I hope it does not sound to harsh. Not will cv.

@amWhy I have upvoted your comment. I'd even say it is the opposite of harsh :)

PSQ with 2 votes after 8 views (update: 3+ after 10views)

@vitamind The mods frown on my more forceful comments! Thanks.

Too many moderators are absent (Note that I'm not referring to Xander). Something has to be done, in my opinion.

@vitamind I've spoken to @quid about unexplainable upvotes, and recent answers in comments. I've started also flagging such posts, including the one you just posted. I also commented there.

The user has improved their question.

@vitamind Yes, but they clearly do not know anything about derivatives: they never take the derivative of anything! This would not have been assigned, nor an exercise, if it had been previously covered in a course, or if the user read the section before exercises.

The answers are also terrible. Only saying let's try 1+1=2 is nothing else than adding an extra step to: Let's try $x=-1$. Oh wow it works!

@vitamind GRRRRHH

I think I misunderstood "derivate" to be about taking the derivative; After seeing the question edited, I understood better.

PSQ math.stackexchange.com/q/4182244/29335

Welcome, @kunalCh. :-)

@KReiser and @TeresaLisbon, and @MartinR, we all need to be persistent in flagging this user's poor answers for mod attention. Yikes.

@amWhy Yes, without a doubt. He's been very keen to begin the PSQ drive again!