« first day (3543 days earlier)      last day (65 days later) » 

5:56 AM
I had flagged the question Need example of a complex valued function which is uniformly continuous. as "Needs details or clarity", but my flag aged away with one "Leave Open" vote in the Close votes review queue. Could some of the folks here take a look at it, please?
 
7:17 AM
Does anyone know a good close-vote reason for this post ? Or is it a question that should not be closed at all ?
 
7:34 AM
@Peter I don't see any reason to close the post. Also, any particular reason you linked to a comment under the post instead of the post itself?
 
9:10 AM
@TheAmplitwist I close-voted as "missing context"
 
9:30 AM
D1, D2, D3, D4
D5, D6, D7, D8
D8 might need more than 3 delete votes, D7 is a proof of Collatz conjecture.
 
10:20 AM
@ArcticChar After the insulting edit, it is even more important to delete D8. One more vote is needed.
 
 
3 hours later…
12:58 PM
@Peter Thanks! I'm not sure if a new review event has been created for it, so I'll keep an eye on it over the next couple of weeks.
 
I could not believe my eyes: Both the question math.stackexchange.com/q/4259077/42969 and the accepted answer are copied verbatim from an earlier thread math.stackexchange.com/q/4258950/42969 (for disclosure: I answered the earlier question). – The author of the copied question even votes to close the original as a duplicate of the copy!
 
@MartinR :( Please flag it for plagiarism asap.
 
@TheAmplitwist Already done. – And now I am massively serial upvoted. Is someone trying to discredit me?
 
1:15 PM
@MartinR Woah. Dunno what's up with that. :O
 
 
2 hours later…
2:53 PM
@MartinR I am entirely certain that the system will revert those votes in the next 24 hours---please let me know if it does not (or, you know, don't... I can't see you being incredibly upset by a little extra XP).
 
3:19 PM
@ArcticChar Flag for D8 pending. How could this one be so heavily upvoted ?
Should a question like this , where the complete story is told in a single comment , be multiply answered ? If not, what shall we do. Flag the answers ?
 
@Peter Deleted, wondering why it says "This question was marked as spam or rude or abusive"?
 
@TheSimpliFire The author added an insulting statement against the users deciding to close this question.
 
@Peter Ah, I missed that.
 
3:34 PM
@Peter it was in the HNQ at some point. Probably that's why.
 
3:45 PM
@Peter AFAIK, there is a fairly loose policy on answering in comments. I don't think it is right to judge a question or its answers solely by whether a comment answers the question or not. It is true that the linked question is fairly elementary, but I don't see a problem with that either. But, it is probably a duplicate. (I don't have the time to search for an appropriate duplicate, though.)
 
4:01 PM
@TheAmplitwist Finally, this case is not very serious. One of the two remaining answers has a completely different approach and the other explains how the comments can be applied. Funny in this case is that the author asks for a proof he/she already presented !
C/D - belongs to another site
 
@ArcticChar D11 is strange. Does the author claim that the chinese people thousand years ago applied matrix multiplication more suitable than we do today ? Or have I misunderstood something ?
 
4:21 PM
D1, D2, D3.
D4, D5, D6.
D7, D8, D9.
 
@Peter Oh, so there are deleted answers to the question? I cannot see them, so I did not know. I can't see that OP has proved their observation about the cycling of the units digits in the powers of 2, so I'm guessing they did benefit from the given answers/comments.
 
@Peter It's also lacking in effort because it's trivial to find it on TheFreeDictionary.
C1, C2, C3.
C4, C5, C6.
 
@user21820 D9 should go, although quite old. Neither the comments nor the answers are very useful and have hardly to do something with the question.
@TheAmplitwist One of the deleted answers summarizes the authors observation and mentiones the possibility with the $5$ and one suggest induction but then admits that contradiction using prime factor $5$ is better. Not very useful since this was already pointed out (apart from the induction approach)
 
 
1 hour later…
6:07 PM
Thanks, @ArcticChar, for alerting us to contemporary posts in need of deletion!
 
 
4 hours later…
9:54 PM
@Peter Gone; the one following it needs one more delete vote; and I can't even vote on the third listed, since I already voted to close last time around :(
@Peter one of the answers there is up for deletion.
 

« first day (3543 days earlier)      last day (65 days later) »