Hi! my question was linked with a question and marked as duplicate but it is not a duplicate.I have mentioned the reasons in edit. Kindly consider voting to reopen it:math.stackexchange.com/questions/4284359/…

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Blacklisted user (71): Matrix multiplication when working over the Weyl algebra Macaulay2 ✏️ by arthur on math.SE

Close please (PSQ and a duplicate): math.stackexchange.com/q/4288798/42969

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Few unique characters in body (95): ..................................................................... ✏️ by Sanket Mishra on math.SE

del-pls 20k+ functions This is an oldie, but I really don't think that it is worth keeping around. However, on the off chance that someone wants to reopen it, here's the link: How to prove that a function f:X\to Xf:X\to X is injective if and only if surjective?‭ - Atom‭ 2019-07-18 08:23:13Z

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Blacklisted user (71): Matrix multiplication when working over the Weyl algebra Macaulay2 ✏️ by arthur on math.SE

@KReiser Are the tags added to the question here prior to your rollback not relevant?

(in particular, is the question not about affine-schemes?)

C

@XanderHenderson Why is this not open for deletion ? Is the score of $-3$ not only necessary for "new" posts ?

@Peter A question can be deleted either (a) 48 hours after it has been closed or (b) earlier, if it has a net score of -3 or lower.

The timing requirement is about the duration between closure and deletion, not the age of the question. So, theoretically, if question #1 on the site were to be closed today, you would still have to wait two days before voting to delete (unless it had a score of -3 or less).

@Peter why close this may i ask

@XanderHenderson So, it has been closed "recently", this is what I missed. Thank you.

@Peter Yes, I closed it just before mentioning it here.

@islamm Because it makes no sense to add the axiom that a theory is inconsistent and then even to claim that the theory keeps consistent if it was consistent before.

D

By the way, does anyone know the purpose of limiting the number of comments a user can mark per day (something like an upvote for a comment) ? And moreover, this limit is ridicoulously small.

@Peter Imagine a bot which pumps out a thousand comments every second.

(I mean, we can argue about where the limit should be, but I think we can all agree that some limit is required?)

This is definitely not an answer: math.stackexchange.com/a/4286133/42969. I had already successfully flagged it as NAA, but for some reason it hasn't been deleted yet.

@MartinR Would this user be the same people who used the suckpuppet?

@MartinR For your flag, my guess is that the "edit" kick it out of the the low quality queue (the review)

@MartinR It's gone.

@XanderHenderson The affine-schemes tag could be appropriate, but the commutative-algebra tag is probably not among the best tags for the question. I think the main reason I rolled that back was the removal of the algebraic-geometry tag - if I were tagging from scratch, the most important tag would be algebraic-geometry, then schemes, then affine-schemes (though the latter two tags have much less traffic than the algebraic-geometry tag and frequently aren't applied even when they may be appropriate).

@KReiser I thought that might be the case. Thanks for the feedback.

Hi!! Kindly consider reopening this question:math.stackexchange.com/questions/4242234/… . Reasons are mentioned in the question itself.

@James Please do not put meta information into the body of a question. You can use the comments below a question to argue for reopening, but a question post should consist of a question, and the information required to give context to that question.

@XanderHenderson Got it!