this is dup of this

@amWhy I mentioned this earlier: chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/47039383#47039383

I don't think that it is really what you are looking for---Dr. Edgar already has plenty of XP, and I don't see anyone else answering as well as he did, but it is a good question.

I am sure that this question is a duplicate. I found a question that seems to be a pretty close match, but it isn't quite perfect. I flagged it as a dupe, but if someone can find a better target, I'd appreciate it.

In any event, @amWhy @paulplusx @user21820 @Holo @anyoneelese, the question should probably be dealt with.

@XanderHenderson Maybe this question?

@Holo I saw that question, but it is closed, and may end up deleted. It also is, I think, a less good match.

@XanderHenderson Also found this

@Holo That is probably a better match

I voted to close as a dup for the last one I linked @XanderHenderson

@Holo Sounds good.

This question just showed up on the reopen queue. Can anyone make heads or tails of the edit?

@BillDubuque You made the edit. Can you please explain what your notation means?

I honestly cannot parse, for example, the expression "4*∑nk=1k3 "

@XanderHenderson Flagged.

@quid Wow, this is the first time for me to know that mods are exempt from be-nice policy and can readily intimidate a user verbally.

@amWhy@ArnaudD.@CarlMummert@Did@Holo@JoséCarlosSantos@JyrkiLahtonen@MartinR@paul‌​plusx@RushabhMehta@SimplyBeautifulArt@TheSimpliFire@user21820@XanderHenderson A few more votes for closure: Κ1, Κ2, Κ3

For deletion: Δ1, Δ2, Δ3, Δ4, Δ5

@AlexFrancisco Cast delete votes for all 5

@AlexFrancisco I think you're exaggerating the situation. "Mods are exempt from the be-nice policy" is totally contrary to the purposes of being a mod. IMO I do not think that @quid has said anything "un-nice" or "readily intimidating". If we take a step back, what is the point of mentioning users many people know are like that already? It does not come as a surprise that they chose to reopen questions to their own favour. What would be more efficient would be to discuss why they do this

and of course, if they don't compromise, as you may have experienced, would require mod intervention. The purposes of CRUDE do not include discussion of specific users.

@paulplusx And like I predicted before(although we now have new sets of eyes reopening the question), we have an open/close war for this question. I wish the mod understood that this might happen and kept an eye on it instead of declining my flag.

@AlexFrancisco I did not threaten you, I informed you about the nature of my earlier remark, as a rule that will be enforced. You had ignored my first remark to that extent. When a second moderator reiterated it your response was also not such that it was clear to me that you intended to follow it. You questioned it without making clear that you still intended to follow it (at least that's how I read it).

The comment is arguably very direct, maybe overly so. I did not intend to be rude. Sorry, if it seemed like this. I wanted to make sure that it is clear to you that you must not keep doing that, since apparently from my first comment it was not clear.

@quid Thanks for apologizing. I didn't intend to be rude, either, but I was a bit piqued then. My apology for you, too.

@AlexFrancisco thank you. As said in the other room, I had unfortunately overlooked a comment of yours, which had made clear you intend to follow it. Given that I can see how my comment looks like unnecessary piling on. Sorry for that, too.

@AlexFrancisco Done.

This answer should be deleted. It is wrong, the user who posted knows that and did nothing about it.

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Mostly dots in answer (34): Bayes Theorem Application Problem? by ILOVEJDK on math.SE

@SmokeDetector Lol! Over-enthusiastic coder.

@AlexFrancisco Reviewed and done.

@XanderHenderson I also didn't know that's possible.

@amWhy @XanderHenderson @CarlMummert @AlexFrancisco: Not an answer at all.

@user21820 Flagged.

@JoséCarlosSantos Confirmed and voted. One more vote to delete.

@user21820 Thank you. This has been bothering me for nearly a year.

@user21820 Same here :P Even I ran out of stars.

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Potentially bad ns for domain in answer (1): Algorithm for generating homeomorphically irreducible trees of size n by Jesse Sakari Hyttinen on math.SE

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Mostly dots in answer (38): Does the conjugate of $dz = d\bar{z}$ and complex differential forms by user602268 on math.SE

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Mostly dots in answer (34): Does the conjugate of $dz = d\bar{z}$ and complex differential forms by user602268 on math.SE

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Mostly dots in answer (34): Does the conjugate of $dz = d\bar{z}$ and complex differential forms by user602268 on math.SE

@SmokeDetector Good bot

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Repeating characters in answer, blacklisted user (151): Computing Airy functions through their Taylor series by user602268 on math.SE

@SmokeDetector Good bot

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Manually reported answer (batch report: post 1 out of 4) (95): Computing Airy functions through their Taylor series by user602268 on math.SE

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Manually reported answer (batch report: post 2 out of 4) (95): Does the conjugate of $dz = d\bar{z}$ and complex differential forms by user602268 on math.SE

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Manually reported answer (batch report: post 3 out of 4) (95): Sum of four Squares relation by user602268 on math.SE

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Manually reported answer (batch report: post 4 out of 4) (95): Uniqueness for classical solution of PDE by user602268 on math.SE

@SmokeDetector very good bot

@XanderHenderson I think it was a copy-paste issue; it got later clarified.

should be closed

I am not a fan of undoing improvements to posts, especially if they are based on input by OP.

@quid I agree, and I would not have rolled back the edit, but I am not sure that I see how Bill Dubuque's edits reflect the intent of the original asker. Would it not be more appropriate to leave a comment with suggestions for edits which could be made?

@XanderHenderson it's rather close to the string of comments on the accepted answer; I do not say it will make in into an math.se "best practice" manual. But just undoing the edit is not ideal either. (I have no problem if it is reclosed, redeleted, whatever.) I also did not vote to reopen (only undelete).

I have a question, when editing a post for fixing mathjax or grammer, is it necessary to add the reason @quid ? It seems to me that there is no point at those cases

@Holo the point is always to explain what happened in the edit. You don't have to be super-detailed of-course. I sometimes write "minor clean-up" for small tweaks.

@Holo I often forget to fill out that box. :\

@XanderHenderson me to. Thanks @quid, I will try to not forget and write something in the future

@Holo it's not a big deal if you forget it, I also do; I just meant to say that there is some reason to write something.

@quid: from my position, I find it odd to make edits using "my", "I" etc as if the OP wrote the edits. We don't encourage the OP to improve the post by improving it for them. Of course, if we're just talking about one post by a given person, it could be instructive about how to write a better post. But I would prefer to encourage the OP to make the edits themselves. If the OP cares little enough not to improve the question, then we shouldn't feel bad about deleting it.

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in username (92): How many ways can they be seated in a rectangular table? by Daniel Tan on math.SE

d1, d2, d3.

d4, d5, d6.

@CarlMummert that's a matter of style, on which one can have differing opinions. (The "I" part.) On the rest, I do not disagree. But it sometimes also can be useful to do the edit, to show what should be done, especially for new users. I have no intent to defend that question specifically. I don't care if it gets deleted. The reason I intervened is that: first, it got selected for deletion because the edit was unclear. Then this was fixed, only for the edit to be undone entirely.

Further @Carl regarding the OP, they at least posted their own answer in the process. I'd say they did show some investment in the thread. That they did not proceed about it in an ideal way is also true. But it's not a case where OP did nothing.

I think we basically agree about it

@quid Long story short: I think that the right outcome was achieved, I just don't think that it was done in the right way. :)

@paulplusx just casted a close vote

For interest here is a timeline

@TheSimpliFire what to write in the url to get to that page of a post?

@Holo math.stackexchange.com/posts/8357/timeline

Timeline! right, I always write history instead and get confused of why it doesn't work

@TheSimpliFire thanks

PSQ

and why is this so positively received?

@TheSimpliFire because it looks scary

@Holo Yay, if I add this picture to every one of my Qs they'll all get tons of upvotes!

@amWhy as you requested.

However I did notice an answer before I did so...

(removed)

(removed)

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Few unique characters in body, mostly dots in body (140): Find AB if BC = 4, BD = 5, and AD = 2. show your work. by Ashley Trammel on math.SE

@SmokeDetector Good bot

Just stumbled upon this nice data query that searches for questions answered by a specified user where the question is of low enough quality that it is at risk of deletion. I've got two: 1 and 2.

Have at them, if you think it's worth it!

For consideration - d1 d2

c1 c2 c3

This one has a question shows how the push to "include effort" leads to bizarre results: the OP claims to have a solution, when there is actually none c4

Another possibility for reclosing: c5

A few more with non-context "tries": c6 c7 c8

c9 c10

random question that should be closed

perhaps a dup of this

This is really bad

PSQ