« first day (2055 days earlier)      last day (2286 days later) » 

Martin Sleziak
Martin Sleziak
7:36 AM
@JohnMa It depends on the situation, but often it makes sense for such comments to be removed after they served their purpose.
What I often do is that I copy the comment also here (or in another chatroom - if it is not relevant to tags but to something else). And I also ask the user to ping me back - so that I know they've read the comment and also that I can delete my comment. (Unless I feel that for some reason it should remain there - for example if the discussion in the comments continues.)
An example with this user (see the chat transcript to see the whole exchange):
Jul 24 '16 at 15:19, by Martin Sleziak
Rodrigo de Azevedo: I have noticed that you have created several new tags. For example the tags for bijective, injective and surjective functions, which have been recently removed. In general, unless you are fairly sure that the tag is going to be useful, you should probably discuss creation of a tag first on meta, there is a thread dedicated for this purpose‌​. If a new tag is discussed on meta first, it is less likely that it will be removed later (which means that the effort — Martin Sleziak 2 mins ago
Jul 24 '16 at 15:20, by Martin Sleziak
Sorry for pinging you on a post unrelated to this issue - but I needed to find a place to ping you. Feel free to ping me in chat after you see these comments - so that I know that I can remove them. — Martin Sleziak 29 secs ago
Jul 24 '16 at 19:31, by Martin Sleziak
@Martin Ping... — Rodrigo de Azevedo 7 mins ago
And you can find many similar exchanges "archived" in this room. Many of them were related to creation of tags, so searching for created could get you to some examples. Or you could search for quote - I believe this includes all comments copied in the room.
I have restricted the above searches to my messages - of course you can search among posts by all users: created, quote.
 
 
7 hours later…
Martin Sleziak
Martin Sleziak
2:29 PM
I have noticed this question on meta:
12
Q: Should we have a [lambert-w] tag?

Asaf KaragilaFrom a small discussion on How do I solve this equation involving a logarithm? there came a question should there be a tag for Lambert W function or not. My concern, which may not be valid, is that this is only a tool for solutions rather than a topic for questions. On the other hand the same th...

discussion tagging
And I also see 310 questions tagged lambert-w (tag-excerpt/ tag-wiki).
Apparently, the opinion on this tag has changed since that meta question.
 
 
4 hours later…
John Ma
John Ma
6:26 PM
Yes, I definitely agree that the comment should be removed. And I guess that user is aware of it.
@MartinSleziak My suggestion is that we do not need this tag: for matrices, one needs only to use eigenvalues-eigenvectors. For operators, we have already spectral-theory, operator-theory.
More importantly, the study of spectral theory for matrices are trivial: one just use Jordan canonical form. Grouping these trivial questions with the non-trivial one in spectral theory/operator theory seems un-necessary.
 

« first day (2055 days earlier)      last day (2286 days later) »