« first day (3489 days earlier)      last day (127 days later) » 

1:59 AM
Flag the answerer of C2.
 
2:37 AM
 
This feels frequently asked but I could not find a duplicate: math.stackexchange.com/q/4213927/29335
 
 
1 hour later…
3:57 AM
@amWhy Good find! =)
@TeresaLisbon Ironically, I can't recognize the user (because I hardly take note of the users involved in my CURED requests), but never mind.
@vitamind C1 is up for deletion. C2 is closed.
 
 
3 hours later…
7:05 AM
@TeresaLisbon I am very disappointed that the deleted post was undeleted. Suggesting such a ridicolous rule , moreover in such a demanding style , is an absolute no-go. Concerning teaching, I agree amWhy. Teachers that do not at least try to prevent cheating , do not deserve to be called "teachers". And if they even support it, they definitely have the wrong job.
Instead of "helping everyone" , the aim must be helping those who cooperate with their teacher and therefore deserve this help.
 
@Peter Totally agree with your evaluation of that post, and what you said about what teachers should do and whom they should help! However, as I said to you, I believe it is for the best that the meta 'answer' is left undeleted, because users with less than 10k rep cannot see deleted posts and so they won't know that there is such negative reception of Theo Bendit's opinion unless it is kept undeleted.
 
@user21820 This is a point I have not considered. Anyway, nice to see that I am not alone with this opinion.
 
@Peter You're not, and it's nice to see you share the same strong anti-cheating stance!
 
7:24 AM
If a moderator answer a contextless question and we ask him not to answer such question is it a right behavior that moderator deletes all those comments which ask him not to answer the question? Something happened here When some people including me asked the moderator not to answer contextless question all those comments were removed by moderator. Is the EoQS policy only for non-moderators?
 
@JitendraSingh The situation is lslightly different. Actually , this occurred : mod violated EoQS by answering a bad question , the question improved, and then those comments that you left would look out of place. So I'm not surprised that they are gone, because anyone seeing them will wonder how that new question is bad in any way. If the question never improved, then I can't see the comments being removed.
 
@JitendraSingh You could bring it up to @XanderHenderson or another moderator in the Mods' Office. The original question was poor and should not have been answered. Moderators should not exempt themselves from the EOQS. If they believe the question was good, they should defend their view.
 
@Peter That's true, I spoke to amWhy yesterday on why it was deleted, now it makes more sense. I had voted to undelete before I spoke, this time I will not be doing that. But you can talk to the others who undeleted, I suppose.
 
7:45 AM
@TeresaLisbon I can't see how the question is improved. It still lacks context
 
@JitendraSingh Which question?
I'm talking about the undelete on Theo Bendit's answer, which asked for votes on the proposal of "deletion must occur at least 12 hours after closure".
I had voted to undelete it. The main question (the Collatz question) itself, I could not see it staying so I delete voted it first time, then close voted it second time.
 
@TeresaLisbon I was replying to this message Teresa. You said comments are gone bcoz the question is improved but I don't see any improvement in it
 
@JitendraSingh In the question? No , I see improvement. For me, it is now clearer what kind of answer the OP wanted at the beginning, and the background they seek. What more would we ask for?
 
@TeresaLisbon I don't find any source or attempt in the question. It is still a PSQ for me
 
@JitendraSingh Same for me. It's unfortunate that the asker has little motivation to supply more context since an answer was already given when it was still a lousy question.
 
7:55 AM
@JitendraSingh No problem, but I don't see that as a PSQ. Arctic also added context, with a worked example and the remark. I know it's a user different from OP, but unfortunately the way the reopening occurred as well, I think people wanted it to stay, so the context was added for that reason. I recognized this when I put it up on the meta reopen thread as well. I can't see a big issue with this question now.
The answerer deserves flak, though.
 
I have a downvote on their answer, for example.
 
@TeresaLisbon So you find it OK, if a moderator first answers a poor question, and then improves it to justify the answer ? The proper order is to suggest the OP to improve it and after that happens, answering it. If the OP does not react, the proper way is not to answer at all. If we allow this practice, this is a clear workaround and we need no EoQS anymore.
 
@Peter I don't find it OK that the mod answered the question, I even flagged! The point is, that we closed the bad question, and then it got reopened with virtually no context added. This means that people were voting to reopen based on the answer that they saw, even if it violated EoQS (because I frankly find it difficult to believe that the mini-rant of OP added any context). At this point I was confused, so I asked OP to add some context. An effort was made, it became for me acceptable.
Then, I saw the question close, and then Arctic added context, the point being that people felt the question was "salvageable" (from the page on context addition and rewrites). Once this context was added, those comments that referred to EoQS were deleted because they would have deflected from the fact that the question improved. That's the thread.
The unfortunate thing about all this is that the question wouldn't have been salvaged if the answer was useless. Unfortunately there is mathematical merit in what the mod has written, and this would have played a part in the reopening anyway.
 
The reopen is not acceptable for me. This invites future users to do it the same way, and EoQS is no hurdle anymore to answer bad questions.
The moderators will have two possibilities : Finally fighting against answering bad questions (no matter whether a moderator answered them, and no matter how good they are) , or watching the site drifting away completely and becoming what it should not be. I have no good feeling by thinking about which decision they will probably finally make.
 
8:05 AM
@Peter EoQS is a hurdle, in the sense that if you flag an answer then you are still getting a response that reflects the EoQS policy enforcement. If we want to get rid of the question, we can still flag the answer and get it removed. I know that the order of improvement in this post is wrong, and that it takes significance when a mod is doing the answering, but the point is that context rewrites are meant for closed questions with good answers, where quite a few people thought the answer good
@Peter This is true : division among mods will be division among users for sure.
 
@TeresaLisbon As Peter said, that is not an acceptable reason. If you subscribe to that reasoning, you are forced to also claim that it is reasonable for high-rep users to post impressive answers to lousy questions and then do a "context rewrite" to keep the question...
 
@TeresaLisbon Nice that you do notice the damage this case has caused.
 
@user21820 I hope this is a rare occasion, I really do. I acknowledge that this is one of those odd occasions where an answer has kept a bad question afloat. If it becomes periodic, then we will have to make sure our enforcement is tighter without doubt. It was my feeling that this case was rarer than it seemed, that made me go into the reopen thread. The CR page itself says that CR should be used very sparingly.
 
@TeresaLisbon Sure.
 
This doesn't make the answerer's decision to write an answer in the first place correct : if someone downvotes or flags with evidence, then you can still bring this to the attention of people.
 
@vitamind For someone not familiar with such Riemann-expressions (like me) this post can easily seem to be OK. But I usually do not vote , if I cannot judge whether it is a good post or not.
 
@Peter The post is ok, I also didn't vote. I was just pointing out the, in my opinion, voting irregularities.
 
Did they happen almost at the same time ?
 
Yes. But probably it's not possible to prove it. There is a user on math.se, who creates a new account for every new question they have. Always these "normal" names. Questions are always in analytic number theory. It wouldn't matter if we'd punish this account, they will create a new one either way.
 
9:09 AM
@vitamind @Peter That user has been creating dozens of sock accounts to evade suspension bans/account destruction and continues to pester any user who posts a comment (sometimes equipped with sock upvoting as is the case here).
 
@TheSimpliFire How long does the system (or the moderators) usually take to notice new such accounts ? Or is this site helpless against such attacks ?
 
@Peter Well two of my flags on their other accounts are still pending but from history, on average it takes about 2-4 days for suspension/deletion of their accounts.
 
@Peter It's helpless.
 
There's really nothing that can be done. It's also not just an MSE site issue, there are many such users/spam posters/trolls etc. across the network that are a lot worse.
 
@TheSimpliFire Surely
 
 
1 hour later…
10:25 AM
Excellent question because it hasn't been deleted. Worst question Because the OP added his own attempt. (even if it's bad)
 
@lonestudent Your comment makes no sense. Why should the first be considered an "excellent question"?!
 
10:45 AM
@lonestudent The first question is not deleted now, but very likely will be deleted soon.
 
@ArcticChar No need to delete. It should be closed in duplicate
There is not even a single valid reason for deletion
 
11:03 AM
@lonestudent It is a poor question. That is valid reason.
 
@lonestudent Reclosing as duplicate requires 5 users to vote to reopen, and another 5 to vote to close as duplicate. That sounds like a waste of other's time/votes.
 
@ArcticChar Hmmm, then I agree.
 
You may flag for merging..... but IMO Bernard's answer does not really answer the question and is not worth keeping. They just reduces the case to $x=e$, but did not explain why the equality holds for this particular case. I also disagree on their definition of $log_x y$.
 
@ArcticChar As @XanderHenderson has said many times, a bad question should not be closed as duplicate, but as lacking context.
There is no reason to keep an entire tree of duplicate bad questions on this site.
 
11:19 AM
@user21820 I always agree on this (I hope some goldbadgers agree on this too)
 
@ArcticChar I am not a party to the deletion process. I don't think it should be deleted because there are answers that have been worked on. I'm just advocating for it to be closed as a duplicate. This Also This both are duplicate .
 
One more vote needed: D1, D2, D3
For closure: C1, C2, C3, C4,
C5, C6, C7, C8, C9, C10
For deletion: D4, D5, D6
 
@ArcticChar But, I just want to say this for clarity. If the answer to the duplicate question is a good one, the answer should be posted to the old question. And the new one should be deleted. But the person answering the Dupe question cannot do that. Because he/she doesn't even know that the question has been deleted. If the answers are bad, there is nothing to say anyway.
 
12:19 PM
The people who posted the answers can trivially move their answers to the old (good) duplicate, within a few clicks and copy-paste, even if the question is deleted. If they choose not to do so, that is their business. Answering poor questions is against the EOQS, regardless of how good the answer is.
@Saad Closed.
 
12:35 PM
You don't understand the point. No notification from deleted question. The question I'm referring to provides context and is not against EoQS. There is a difference of opinion here.
 
What?! "Intuitively it makes somewhat sense, but I wonder if there exists a simple proof for that?" is not context. It is an excuse for not showing effort.
 
What did you understand from the first sentence? Do you really think so? Maybe I should have written "excellent" there. I'm already aware that the question doesn't have context. I'm not talking about these questions. By the way, stars are not for "like".
 
12:54 PM
...
 
1:14 PM
I am sick of this mantra "stars are not for like". Stars are for useful comments that are also interesting for other users, and usually , I "like" such comments actually, but I do not star them as a "like" in social media.
 
@Peter The downside of this use is that when there's a heated debate going on in the room, stars would be abused and flood the sidebar.
 
And I also have the opinion that the "excellent" and "worse" should have been used, if at all, in reversed order. First, I thought this would be a joke, but ...
 
 
1:35 PM
@Peter These are XanderHenderson's words. I quoted. Is not it? $\ddot\smile$ By the way, yes it was sarcasm. My English covered it, it was incomprehensible.
@Peter Probably 3 people who rated it and 4 people in total didn't feel the sarcasm. I am not advocating the second question. It's good to close.. But,.. what about deleting? This is now "opinion-based" action. Not the rules.
 
2:42 PM
nice question , please upvote.
@TeresaLisbon C123 now factored ?
 
@Peter Moderators should be held to the same standard as everyone else. Generally speaking, that standard is "Don't answer PSQs, but one or two every once in a while isn't the end of the world." Again, please keep in mind that the EoQS is really meant to deal with the problem of answerers who serially answer low-quality questions.
So, abstractly speaking, it is not okay for anyone to answer low-quality questions (including moderators).
Indeed, we should probably be held to a higher standard than other users.
But everyone is entitled to a mistake every now and then.
Please also note that I have not read the question cited above---I am speaking abstractly, and am not commenting on the inciting incident here.
@user21820 The whole point of the context rewrite policy is to allow users with good or great answers to pose a new, high quality question for them to answer. I don't really see a problem with this, as long as either (a) the rewritten question clearly adheres to the asker's original intentions or (b) the rewritten question is a brand new question, and the original is deleted.
I do agree that there is an "order of operations" here---I really don't like the idea of posting an answer and then trying to fix the question. Though I can imagine circumstances when that might be the natural order (e.g. I see a question, don't immediately know the answer, spend some time figuring it out, post the answer, then try to fix the question---as I didn't know the answer right away, I might not have known how a fix might go before attempting to answer the question).
That being said, such cases are likely pretty borderline, and policy should not be about edge cases.
As a general rule: (1) improve the question and only then (2) answer the question.
@lonestudent As pointed out above, any question of low-quality should be deleted. This includes low-quality duplicates.
The first question one should ask is "Does this question meet the quality standards for the site?" If not, it should be closed for that lack of quality.
If a question meets the standards for the site, the next question one should ask is "Is this question a duplicate?" If yes, then vote to close as such.
But there is no reason to keep a low-quality question around simply because it happens to be a duplicate.
 
2:59 PM
@XanderHenderson Exactly; context rewrites are not for rewriting the original bad question and then reopening it. That was part of the point behind my remark.
 
@user21820 Gotcha.
 
Thanks for posting a clarifying essay, though! =)
 
@user21820 I think @Xander is studying and practicing for his law degree!
 
@amWhy Oh I didn't know he was going for such a high bar!
 
@amWhy My brother already has one of those.
Also, I have coffee now.
 
3:10 PM
@XanderHenderson So you can turn it into theorems? =P
 
@user21820 No. My brain is scrambled. I finished teaching last week, and have to go to Phoenix today. I get home tomorrow, and then have to deal with MathFest all week.
Then I am going to sleep for three straight days.
Then, maybe, I will attempt to do actual math.
 
Ah ok. Rest well.
 
Though my reading list at the moment is full of philosophers (I have a pile of books that I haven't had a chance to get to since starting my phd, including Wittgenstein, Russell, and Frege).
 
3:29 PM
@Xander I'd suggest you Read Russell before engaging in Wittgenstein; it will provide context for Wittgenstein's Tractatus, and later, Philosophical Investigations, which evidence his departure from the logical positivists.
 
I've read some of all of these authors in the past, but I am trying to consolidate my knowledge, and get a deeper understanding.
 
@XanderHenderson Indeed.
 
@Peter Still going, 3 days in, curve number 3059. Anyway, got to go and see you all in the morning!
 
@Peter Just as an FYI, I am not super-comfortable with requests for up- or down-votes. "Hey, [this] is a nice question" is entirely reasonable. "Hey, [this] is a nice question, please upvote it" rubs me a little the wrong way. Ditto "One more downvote needed for deletion".
 
3:44 PM
@XanderHenderson Thanks for clarifications. Yes, I added some details to my comment about the deletion. I hope you didn't miss it. If there is a good answer it is possible to post it to the old question. But we do not know that the question has been deleted. Because we don't get notifications. But, this is not my case...
@XanderHenderson Please, can you tell me your personal exact opinion? This question contains some context. I have no words for the closing votes. But the act of deletion? Please justify this.
 
@lonestudent Xander already did:
in Math Mods' Office, 2 hours ago, by Xander Henderson
@user21820 I disagree that it is a "blatant" violation of the community standards. The question is slightly more than a PSQ, as a source is given. I would imagine that others might consider there to be an attempt in there, as well (for the record, I disagree with those people).
in Math Mods' Office, 2 hours ago, by Xander Henderson
That being said, the question is not up to snuff, and was very appropriately closed and deleted. There was no abuse of power there.
 
4:04 PM
The two interpretations clearly contradict each other. I don't know about logic symbols. But I know what's going on here.
 
4:18 PM
In any case, if the question is reopened then we will say "question opened appropriately". Otherwise we say "Question deleted appropriately". MSE users are not obliged to accept the opinion of the 3 people who voted to delete the opinion. For this, a quick solution is simply forming a counter-room quite democratically to nullify these votes. I would love to do this. But, I'm not a mathematician. Maybe there will be such a room in the future. (translator)
 
@lonestudent By a counter-room, do you mean something like Gentle?
 
@ArcticChar You understand me correct.
 
@lonestudent Ok... Of course you are free to set up such a room, but make sure it is not hijacked by others who just want their low quality post undeleted/reopened. IMO, if a post is not too bad, with a little edits it gots undeleted/reopened quite easily on meta, using the dedicated thread
 
4:33 PM
@ArcticChar Thank you for your suggestion..I'm aware of the meta post but I think it might not be as effective as room actions.
 
4:45 PM
@ArcticChar The asker of the deleted question is active. I can invite him/her to a chat and I can help his/her improve the question. Yes the question is contest/algebra that everyone knows. It does not require special knowledge. Also, my work was wasted. But now I will accept things as they are.
 
5:17 PM
Please consider deleting, Question specifies two users that they want to answer the question, which is entirely inappropriate.
@lonestudent Your work being wasted was appropriate. You need only stop answering PSQ's. Please stop ranting about posts that were appropriately closed and/or undeleted. And please stop wasting your time trying to answer very poor quality answers. You are the one responsible for answering them. Deal with the consequences for you choices.
If you cannot stop ranting in this chatroom, I'll have to flag you for doing your ongoing rant. You were free to work on the post you consider wasted. It was wasted only because you chose to answer a poor question. that means, you wasted your time, now accept the consequences of your choice, which is precisely, you
..., and only you, wasted your time and other users' time.
 
5:34 PM
Proof: "First i’ve tried to manipulate the equation and then square both sides but it didn’t work". Says who? I don't see the results of the squaring. Anyone can claim they tried something. Heck, I also can say I tried (I didn't)... "then i’ve tried to prove it by contradiction in other word i wanted to show that a,b Can’t have the same parity" Again, that's not a try, but a mere claim of a try... "I think that this method is the best but it didn’t help." This is useless too.
In fact, I can say "I tried to prove Collatz conjecture.". Oh look, I actually said it!! Don't blame me, @Peter, this is just a joke.
 
"I tried to solve the Continuum Hypotheses. But I'm stuck. Someone tell me how to prove it."
 
@amWhy Good for you! Only cranks don't get stuck! =D
 
@user21820 Indeed, but nor would I post such nonsense, nor from a Crank.
 
Of course. It's just our feeble attempts to demonstrate what no-effort looks like.
 
@amWhy Let's be honest. You don't talk technical. This is not an answer to my comment. You're making a word salad.
 
5:40 PM
@user21820 Exactly. It's actually a challenge to do so.
@lonestudent zzzzzzzz
 
What is shorten context? What are you trying to do?
 
What are you trying to do? Already gave you a full explanation of why that question is lousy, and all you can say is "let's be honest". Did you know? Honest people don't need to even think about being honest.
 
No, shorten the context on purpose. The question gives us a source. Don't cut the parts that don't work for you.
 
@lonestudent The question asks: "Do this". (imperative order) Followed by, I tried X, but it didn't work. I tried Y in two ways, but it didn't work. (No such effort shown to validate those claims.) = PSQ, which you ought not have answered.
 
@lonestudent Source is not effort. I keep saying it's a no-effort question.
Don't make wild accusations on purpose. I did not shorten anything on purpose. If you believe I did, it's only in your mind.
 
5:49 PM
No you haven't proven that this is a PSQ question. Because, the question contains a exact source. The OP has clearly stated which ways he/she has tried.
Also, the first sentence of the question is the source. And you took that out of context.
 
@lonestudent I don't think that anyone has argued that the question is a PSQ. Folk have argued that it is low-quality.
PSQ is a very specific type of low-quality question. A question can be of low-quality, and not be a PSQ. In this case, the question is not a PSQ because the author has provided a source (which is a good start at providing context), and has claimed to have made an attempt (but there is no actual attempt shown, so it is impossible to know what the author actually did).
This isn't a PSQ, but it is still of very poor quality, and needs improvement.
 
@XanderHenderson Please, review @amWhy's claim/comment. Thank you.
 
@lonestudent Which comment / claim?
This is an online forum on which hyperlinking works very well.
If you want me to review something, please provide me with a link.
 
@Xander While you are at it, please suggest how to best deal with some users misusing this chat, short of flagging for some network wide mod. Note, I have not sent inappropriate comments to Trash. But lone-student is battling such action on the deletion of his answer both in the Mod's chat, and here. And in doing so, they are more or less, double posting.
 
@XanderHenderson amWhy has clearly claimed that this is the PSQ question And she said she would flag me. Discussion is natural. I wanted technical talk. “I will flag you,” they said. Here is the answer I got.
 
5:59 PM
@amWhy Abstractly, as a room owner, you can put the room in a timeout, or kick/mute the offending user. You can also simply ignore them---this room generates a lot of controversy, so the better part of valor may be to simply ignore a bothersome user.
Okay... now reread my previous statement, which began with "**I don't think that**..." Obviously, I was incorrect. However, this does not negate any of the rest of what I said:

A question can be of low-quality, and not be a PSQ. In this case, the question is not a PSQ because the author has provided a source (which is a good start at providing context), and has claimed to have made an attempt (but there is no actual attempt shown, so it is impossible to know what the author actually did).

This isn't a PSQ, but it is still of very poor quality, and needs improvement.
 
Exactly. PSQ ⇒ 100% lazy. Poor-quality ⇒ quite lazy.
 
@Xander. Yes, I can do that. But please remember when this user might complain elsewhere about being ignored. I want to make it crystal clear that I am ignoring this user do to their protest, and "yes but-ing" helpful attempts to explain, etc., and their obstinate insistent that they are right, all others are wrong.
 
Again, anyone can read the transcript, and judge for themselves about whether or not the behaviour of a given user is appropriate. I would suggest that, in general, it is best to ignore someone who is bothering you.
The mantra I am trying to teach to my daughter is "It is often better to be kind than right" (she tends to be very oppositional and will argue just about any point). Something similar likely applies here. You may be in the right, but it may be best, abstractly speaking, to demur, and let another user dig their own hole.
In any event, I need to get on the road for Phoenix if I am going to get in before dinner.
Later, all.
 
@XanderHenderson Thank you for explanations. By the way, thanks for telling the room owners that you can kick me out. By the way, should the steps that are known to be wrong be added to the question? It can be discussed. Anyway, I'm going with my own dignity and of my own free will.
 
@XanderHenderson: that mantra is really helpful and practical.
 
6:08 PM
@lonestudent I did not tell anyone that they could kick you out. I explained the technical aspects of how a room is managed. While I imagine that amWhy was referring to you, I did not suggest that she should kick you out, or mute you, or take any other action towards you. I gave abstract advice about how a room own can manage a room.
 
@XanderHenderson I told you, I plan to do that. But I want you to back up my ignoring of this user, in the event, given the patterns of this user, they complain bitterly here or in the mods's office, or on meta about being "completely ignored." By asserting, any user/users can choose ti ignore bothersome users.
@lonestudent I chose not to take that route. You're welcome.
 
@amWhy I honestly think that more grief is created when users try to engage each other beyond the point that they are all angry and frustrated. If a user is bothering you, ignore them (you can even specifically ignore them so that you can't see their comments). At some point, further engagement is unlikely to be productive.
But, as I said, I need to go now.
I should be available again on Tuesday.
 
@XanderHenderson Why won't you openly absolve me from future complaints and meta posts by this user, complaining users are "unfairly ignoring me :(". That's all I asked. I did not continue.
I just don't yet another "damned if I do, damned if I don't scenario" some users confront way too often.
But yes, @XAnder, Best of luck, while the rest of your servant peons are left to clean up the sewers on their own.
 
@XanderHenderson I know. I am aware. If you ask someone for a technical talk and they say "I'll flag you" in return, the other deliberately removes the "source of the problem" from the context, then the discussion is over. Right? This is not a PSQ.
Poor quality questions should be kept open for improvement rather than deletion. (not forever, of course) How do I comment to improve a deleted question? Anyway, I'll look at your answer, but I won't be back. There's no arguing with a person who starts their comment with "I'll flag you".
 
@XanderHenderson You don't know when to stop, as well, frequently enough. I'll follow your lead.
 
6:18 PM
@XanderHenderson Thanks for your consideration. Good night.
 
@lonestudent That's not true. I deleted an incomplete thought to Xander, in order to read and respond to his comment posted prior to my completing my thought I had started, to him. Cheers.
 
32 mins ago, by user21820
Don't make wild accusations on purpose. I did not shorten anything on purpose. If you believe I did, it's only in your mind.
 
This room was placed in timeout for 10 minutes; Enough.
 
6:44 PM
Welcome back, everyone!! @MartinR, @TheSimpliFire, @user21820, @me, @ParamanandSingh
Please consider deleting this question.
 
7:03 PM
D1, D2, D3.
D4, D5, D6.
D7, D8, D9.
C1, C2, C3.
 
 
1 hour later…
 
3 hours later…
10:49 PM
1 message moved to ­Trash
 

« first day (3489 days earlier)      last day (127 days later) »