How does this question get as many as six upvotes, when it's less than a PSQ? math.stackexchange.com/questions/2594578/…

Open for deletion: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2594950/…

But @amWhy, "It seem an answer from a person not skilled about limits, I think that it deserve an answer as many others OP here on MSE." How can you argue with that?! eyeroll

It has several reopen votes now, too.

@XanderHenderson the question was ill written in the first place so the OP has not put forth any effort into their question.

So is it really worth answering?

Hence the eyeroll. That is, actually, the content of my response to gimusi

also @Typhon, I pinged you in "Constructive Feedback"

ok

sew my reply in the question

@Typhon Since a long comment thread seems counter to the spirit of this site, I am going to respond to this comment here: I honestly think that new users ought to be treated a little more gently in the sense that they should receive more feedback about why their questions are being closed

but bad questions and answers are bad questions and answers, and should be dealt with no matter who the user is

@XanderHenderson I meant they should be treated with less slack with regards to whether or not they should be banned or blocked from asking more questions for a period of time.

They havent proven yet that they dont intend to cause trouble.

@XanderHenderson sorry I will immediately delete it.

needs close votes

@amWhy @ZacharySelk @Did: One more vote needed here.

@XanderHenderson @SimplyBeautifulArt: And PSQs here and here and here.

@amWhy @Did @DavidReed @XanderHenderson: This and this and this are sort of rubbish. The first is not even mathematically useful for the reason that "definability of objects" is itself not definable in an absolute sense.

@amWhy @Did @ZacharySelk @XanderHenderson: This is ridiculous. (1) The author makes so many patently invalid claims, about consistency and Gentzen's proof and Tarski's theorem. (2) The author calls modern mathematics "craps".

@Did @ZacharySelk @SimplyBeautifulArt @amWhy: This PSQ got a lot of upvotes (probably because it's on the HNQ).

@user21820 Downvoted all three; the last (third) is now open for deletion.

@user21820 Downvoted and voted to close

@amWhy: Thanks!

@user21820 Downvoted; I'll keep track of its progress toward deletion!

@user21820 The first is now deleted.

Two more downvotes for this closed PSQ will open it for deletion: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2595601/…

@user21820, @Did, @SimplyBeautifulArt, @ZacharySelk: One more delete vote needed here

downvoted both

Thanks, @XanderHenderson !

@user170039 Actually, it's not an option because you're not supposed to edit a post to make its meaning significantly different from the originally intended one.

The author clearly wishes to disparage modern mathematics despite being a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect in the field of logic. However much I do not like ZFC set theory, I think it is patently unfair to call it "craps".

@user21820, @Did, @ZacharySelk et al. Keep a look out for this user whose most recent posts have been almost exclusively PSQ's (perhaps most posts from this user are). Has also received highly upvoted answers from users including MR and DS et al. (Too many PSQ's to post them each here!)

@amWhy @Did @ZacharySelk: This is now open for deletion.

@user21820 One more to go!

This is open for deletion, @user21820, @Did, @ZacharySelk math.stackexchange.com/questions/2595764/…

@amWhy It's now got 2 re-open votes despite having been closed by our moderator quid...

@amWhy Interestingly, I left a comment on their last question, mentioning that they are misusing the site, and suggesting to add context to their next installments. But this comment has already disappeared. If even a mention that PSQ-factories are inappropriate, cannot stay now...

@Did It's possible that users might flag comments and if enough of them do so then they may even get deleted before the moderators see them. The bad thing about Math SE is that we aren't even notified of our comments deleted, and why.

Anyway on that same question I can't really understand why this answer is a good one, given the existing comments asking for clarification of "definitively".

@user21820 It isn't a good answer.

@XanderHenderson So what were the 4 upvoters thinking?

That user has a habit of writing very sketchy arguments that abuse language and notation in non-obvious ways.

@user21820 No idea.

@Did @amWhy @ZacharySelk @XanderHenderson: This post is wrong because it implies that W&R managed to prove mathematical induction non-circularly, which is rubbish. In case you do not know about this user, note his profile and similar comment and his violence inciting.

@user21820 It's now open for deletion, after my downvote, and a vote to delete. (But folks, I've been devoting pretty much all the rep I earn each week to downvotes such as this, on very bad, very wrong, very unhelpful answers. Yes that's been my choice, but it does get frustrating that the burden isn't necessarily shared by all.)

@user21820 On that note: one more vote needed for deletion: math.stackexchange.com/a/2594984

@amWhy I already voted to delete earlier. We only need one more voter.

@amWhy Also already voted earlier.

@user21820 ooh... you pinged me almost instantaneously! Then we'll hope that @Did, or @ZacharySelk, or @SimplyBeautifulArt, or anyone else who can vote to delete casts the final vote to delete: math.stackexchange.com/a/2594984

@amWhy: Yeap. I'm off now. See you!

@amWhy Criminy... why won't that answer die?

@XanderHenderson because one small user imagines him/herself to be a genius placed on earth to steer all students of math, and all mathematicians, onto the path of eternal truth, despite the fact that it is apparent to most that this user is a small, small, insecure, overly defensive, person who will do anything to come out looking good, even if it means being horribly wrong. I could go on... but it would only be a more pitiful characterization.

@amWhy That describes the user pretty well, but it doesn't explain the 5 upvotes, nor the undeletion of the answer. It is just confusing...

@XanderHenderson Unfortunately, there are users who, upon the mere mention of "unfair" or "defending the underdog" will have a knee-jerk reflexive action to immediately cast an upvote for poor questions and poor answers, just because, just to make them feel good.

sigh

And unfortunately, in the case at hand, when there are many answerers, good, bad, terrible, or anything in between, there will always be an unreasonable number of upvotes from the answerers, on the question they end up upvoting, because, well, If a user answers a question, it must be therefore a good question, right? (Terribly wrong.)

@amWhy You have probably noticed that gimusi has asked about deletion of the answer on meta: Evaluation of $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} \frac{n\cdot 2^n }{3^n}$

I see that it was deleted already twice: revisions/timeline.

@MartinSleziak Yes, which was migrated from main, after its first deletion, and then undeleted, and then deleted again. What about it?

Well, since you brought up the answer here in this room and you were among the users who voted to delete, I thought it was reasonable to let you know that it is discussed on meta. (And, additionally, that discussion on meta is related to general topic of this room, so probably deserves mentioning here.)

gimusi has received a lot of feedback, prior to being moved to meta, after being moved to meta, and at the question/answer itself. Seems to me nothing more than a matter of sour grapes about having a rather poor answer deleted.

@MartinSleziak No problem for mentioning it here. I'm just surprised that you would worry I wouldn't have see the original -> migrated to meta post. But I do appreciate it. Didn't mean to snap at you. Thanks!

gimusi seems to be rather truculent in general. He tends to react poorly to requests for clarification, and gets very defensive when his epeen... er... reputation goes down.

Why have virtually all my legit comments to gimusi been deleted. The last of which was absurd to have deleted as "not nice". It was reporting the status of the answer at the point it transferred to meta. And, while gimusi flagged my update/informational comment on his/her most recent meta post, and the mods obliged, why has s/he been allowed to attack me, offend me by referring to me as a she, with no repercussions? I'm getting pretty sick of the bending over for whiny users...

...and the dismissal of long term users, their comments, and their flags in such matters. @quid? @DanielFischer?

@amWhy I just came across this and try to understand the situation.

I flagged the relevant offensive flag from gimusi on their most recent whine on meta. Perhaps it has not yet been seen. I guess I was expecting the kind of immediate action gimusi has been receiving from mods this last couple of hours, most recently, minutes before my flag. But, as I note, there are clearly users with preference, and those without, given some mods anyway.

@amWhy I think that I had handled your flag before commenting. But maybe you are talking about another flag.

"why he needs to point out here that the post was deleted for the second time? I really think that this person does not have the lucidity and the characteristics necessary to make the moderator in a site like this. He is a very negative example for many others! – gimusi 37 mins ago deleted by quid♦ 11 mins ago "

If my question seems odd please note that comment flags do not come together with the info who flagged.

@quid Yes indeed; I see it is gone. And that is the comment I flagged. Thanks, @quid.

No problem @amWhy I am still not sure which of your comments you were talking about. On which post was it?

I found it. Sorry. Not sure why I overlooked it.

@quid The one I referred to on the meta page was merely a : "FYI: this question was first asked on MSE. The answer this user wanted undeleted was undeleted. It has since been deleted again, .... okay, is this start pretty much what you see?

Yes. That's it. I tend to agree that one could have left it around, but I just would not read much into it being deleted. It's couched between a couple of also deleted comments, and things can get confusing. Maybe somebody took issue with it starting with NOTE:

Re the confusing. It seems I had deleted a comment on main in that thread. I have no idea how.

What is a problem though is that loose flagging of comment can have success.

By "that thread" I mean the original answer, which is not really that thread.

Note @user21820, @XanderHenderson, @Did, @SimplyBeautifulArt, @ZacharySelk, that this contentious question, while currently closed, has three reopen votes. I'd like to see the question deleted, which will likely require three more downvotes on it. In any case, just an FYI.

@quid I flagged two comments, which I believe are inappropriate work-arounds to the fact that gimusi's answer is currently deleted and locked: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2594578/… But it's likely pointless. Looks like the poor, very poor question will get reopened, after all.

I give up....

@amWhy removed that comment. But I did not remove the comment mentioning the meta thread. I think it is useful information for the time being and there is no better place for it as far as I can see.

On the other hand I do not agree with the roll back. The edit is in my opinion well within what is acceptable.

Furthemore to give the question yet more front page time seems not desirable.

How can that question have received 7 honest upvotes? This is what's sickening about this site. It stands +1 now. 7 upvotes, six downvotes. How am I supposed to respect my peers who upvoted the question seven times, never giving any reason why it's worth an upvote. So the asker goes away feeling "Wow"... I can continue to post homework, and let all the rep whores go after it! Cool!. And we've got at least one answerer who has become the poster child of "whine when you don't like results

@quid Don't know what you mean about "the roll back." I can neither agree nor disagree because you haven't explained what you are referring to.

@amWhy you again rolled back an edit to the question.

@amWhy and two people have favorited it. I feel like a lot of users favorite HW problems. That is the case with Young. Maybe for their own future reference in the event that it comes up. One of Young's questions virtually identical to that one had like 20 people favorite it

Sorry that's actually not true. @amWhy

@amWhy I do think it's plausible that sometimes people really have no idea even how to start a problem. Which is why I don't necessarily readily dismiss PSQ's like most others

@user21820 Further reminder I have insufficient reputation to close vote...best I can do is downvote.

@DavidReed I don't know what you're talking about. I did not favorite anything for at least a month now. Don't theorize or accuse anyone of what you do not know.

@amWhy ....I was speaking of the post you didn't like. I mentioned two people favorited it. I wasn't accusing you of anything

In fact I was agreeing with you. I just downvoted the question

@quid Am I supposed to know what you mean now?

@amWhy Are you ok?

@DavidReed No problem... I read it as suggesting a favorited it! Got it now. Anyway I usually only usefavoriting to keep track of bad questions!

@amWhy Ah I see

@amWhy you very recently edited the question we talk about. I thought in error that this was again a rollback but it was not. It was an edit, not a rollback.

Thus I apologized for me incorrect remark.

@quid Oh, okay... little Jack likely edited my edit, and @DanielFischer seemed to wimp out by voting to reopen the question.

@amWhy he dupe close it then.

@quid No problem! :]

@quid Shame on me! He did indeed closed it as a dupe! Thanks @DanielFischer, and sorry for my wimpy comment earlier.

@amWhy yes, Jack rolled back your edit (which I do not think was a good idea either, his roll back I mean). This is what confused me as I did not study the revision history carefully enough. It's a confusing thread. Anyway I hope the dupe closure will be a good stop gap.

So do I.

One more time, shall we, @user21820, @Did, @ZacharySelk, @SimplyBeautifulArt ? up for deletion

@DanielFischer So do eye! and Aye!