@MathematicsAminPhysics Personally, I feel it has too much "attitude". Meta posts that include false information are more likely to be closed and deleted. Such false information in your meta post likely includes your claims of the motives of those who closed your question.
2
user84215
@SimplyBeautifulArt What false information? Where have I claimed the motives of those who closed my question?
@MathematicsAminPhysics As to why it has 2 deletion votes: it has too much sensitive stuff IMO. If you redid the post and focused on what I think should be the real question (are '...' questions considered off-topic), then it'd actually come off as a pretty good meta post
user84215
I do not know which parts of my post are bad? Which parts of my post should be edited?
@MathematicsAminPhysics Sorry, that was from the linked main site post.
Preferably, remove the red parts. They are unrelated to the question (are '...' questions considered off-topic)
The yellow parts are kind of 'meh', you can keep or not keep, up to you
Green part and all the above stuff is good
Try to avoid comments like these. If you get comments that are off-topic from the meta post, you can simply say "I am mostly interested in whether or not these questions are considered on-topic anymore. Please do not side-track from this."
Overall, I think if you did this, you'd get a good/on-topic meta post that deals with a serious issue.
Also, try to avoid retaliation. Two negatives only make more negative.
@MathematicsAminPhysics This last one was not downvoted so severely because questions that ask whether or not a certain group of questions are consider on-topic are serious questions
However, you tend to go off of this, especially be linking it to your own posts.
Also note that your main site question was reopened, so not all things are so bad here.
user84215
@Jack Can you tell me why you have removed one of the most important parts of my question ("Please assume that this is a question of the one ...")?
@MathematicsAminPhysics How does "Please assume that this is a question of the one who knows little mathematics (a bit higher than high school mathematics)." add to the question?
It only makes it more difficult to take the question seriously
^ Not just "a bit higher than high school mathematics" to most
user84215
It was one of the most important parts of my post.
@MathematicsAminPhysics Probably not much. But if you insist on editing a post and it repeatedly gets rolled back, you run the risk of suspension, just as this user did (suspension is now over)
@MathematicsAminPhysics just in case nobody pointed it out, I did notice the concern at the bottom of your post about posts being routinely closed by 5 users not liking a user and choosing to close or delete their posts
there are two reasons that won't work, first, other people could vote to re-open (and it wouldn't allow the original closers to reclose vote) (same goes for delete) and also there are systems in place to help prevent "close brigaiding"
which is what you are describing. It's been an issue in a few places in the past (more on topics people don't like than people, but either way it would be an issue), so countermeasures have been designed to help prevent it
@AJHenderson @MathematicsAminPhysics In your case it seems that c >> 5, where c is the number of people who think that your Meta posts have been off-topic. However, c is not n, where n is the number of people who dislike you. You have no evidence for any relation between c and n. Note however that since c >> 5, it is clear-cut that the community concurs that your Meta posts have not been on-topic. n is irrelevant, and ought to be irrelevant.
@SimplyBeautifulArt has already given you helpful colourful advice on what made your Meta posts disagreeable to the community. If you follow it, you will see c seem to decrease on your future Meta posts.
@MathematicsAminPhysics: I will add one thing to what SBA said. NEVER re-post a question/answer simply to force people to see it, if it has already been closed/deleted. And NEVER threaten to do any such sort of thing, like "If this post is deleted by unknowns, I will try to repost exactly the same post ." as you did here.
This is considered spamming, and most functional online communities do not permit such kind of behaviour. If you do not like such kind of rules here, you are welcome to leave. I'm sure you will enjoy posting in certain online fora such as Yahoo Answer and Reddit, much more than you would here if you insist on continuing your past behaviour.
room topic changed to Math Meta Chat: Chat-room for Math Meta stuff (for moderator-related stuff please go to the Math Mods' Office instead) Mathematics Meta
@AJHenderson: Inline links don't seem to work haha.
@MartinSleziak: Feel free to add as owners whoever is active on Meta, so that this can be a place for Meta-related chat. If you feel it is worth adding to your list of chat-rooms, please go ahead. =)
I'll leave the adding to list of chat rooms up to you. You're the room creator so you have best idea what this rooms is intended for. (But since you mention the list of chat rooms, should we also mention main chat room somewhere in that post?)
On an unrelated note, it would be nice if room with the name "Math Meta Chat" were associate with meta rather with the main site. It's probably only cosmetic change, but OTOH it would make room "almost unfreezable" even if there is no activity for a longer period of time.
But I guess that associated room cannot be changed after a room was created, the only time when it can be chosen is when the room is created.
@MartinSleziak @AJHenderson: I didn't notice any option to tie it to the meta site, and I didn't realize I should click on "other sites". Oops. Let's ask Daniel or somebody.
By "almost unfreezable" I mean that the system keeps at least one room associated with meta "alive" and it is no t very likely that somebody creates a new room associated with meta. You can notice that Targeted downvoting room was not frozen, despite no messages for a long time. Before that one, Normal Chatroom was aiive for a long time with no messages.
@AJHenderson Wait it seems I can create a room associated to Mathematics Meta, on creation. I didn't actually go through with it, so I don't know if it will fail. But it allows me to select that site from the "more sites".
But that thing with meta as a parent was just a side remark (or snide remark?). After all, if this room is supposed to be kept around, we can simply post something once in a fortnight so that it is not frozen.
@DanielFischer: Would you mind changing the host site for this chat-room to Mathematics Meta? I didn't know it was possible until Martin pointed it out.
So we shall see. And yea it's not too difficult to keep this room active, and moderators can unfreeze it if needed.
So if I understand it correctly, if I stumble on a meta post where I feel the need to discuss its closure or reopening or something similar, this is the place to go?
What else would be, for example, on-topic in this new room?
@user21820 To be honest, the way Mods' office evolved it seems to be now "a room for input from mods or from experienced users". Quite often somebody thinks that they actually needs help from mods and it turns out that it can be done without mod's intervention.
