Andre Silva

Thank you.

Rickyfox, thanks for the suggestion. Thought asking here, because this is a yes/no question. But if I have a more focused Q/A question about that article, I will do as you suggest.

Thank you so much whuber. This is very clarifying (I had not understood that part; now it makes sense).

Can someone tell me if the article from professor Myers (1989) is a good/solid reference for defining what stationarity in geostatistics is? Myers, D. E. (1989) To Be or Not to Be... Stationary? That Is the Question. Mathematical Geology, Vol. 21, No. 3, 1989. Or with time, there were other nowadays more standard definitions of stationarity, or perhaps better explanations/articles about the topic?

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

About linestring probably a synonym indeed. Main difference seems that linestring is more used in context of PostgreSQL/PostGIS (top users are the same, the most associated tag is postgis; see gis.stackexchange.com/tags/linestring/topusers). OTH, line seems more related to more traditional GIS software (qgis/arcgis-desktop; see gis.stackexchange.com/tags/line/topusers). Maybe ask some of the PostgreSQL/PostGIS guys if there is a difference in their pov.

@PolyGeo, I appreciate your efforts. Yeah, I use those when there aren't other more specific tags, or when they are the focus of the question (I mean with no broader context involved; 'how to clip a polygon ...'; 'how to connect two lines ..', 'creating equidistant points ...', etc...). I think they are useful.

@PolyGeo, thanks for acting on this. However, point should be the master, not only because it was used in more than 1k questions while points in less than 100; but also because line and polygon are also in singular form. So making 'points' the master makes no sense.

@PolyGeo, I just became aware of tags point and points. I think it is very clear cut they are synonyms, so no Meta discussion required in my opinion. I tried to suggest 'points' to be a synonym of 'point' in the synonym page of 'point', but besides not having 5 score in 'points', it threw me a strange message "A synonym from points to point exists, chains are not allowed". From what I see they are not synonyms yet. Maybe you or another mod can take a look? Tks.

Alright, thank you PolyGeo.

I dislike being a snitch but I think this suspect behaviour might be impacting negatively our community and I suggest it is worthwhile to investigate. Now I leave this into your hands (mods). Tks.

His/her history shows 100% 'no action needed' (checked at least most recent 10 pages in the history, but there is much more). He is just clicking the button, climbing the rank and let all the work to be handled randomly outside the queue (possibly by moderators). Imagine this user being candidate in an election, people will think he/she reviews a lot (by the rank) and is doing a good job.

Just look at his/her review history and actions taken in 'first posts': when some action is taken the history registers 'reviewed'; when none action is taken, it is 'no action needed'.

But to prove my point none of these links are necessary. continues...

@PolyGeo, alright thanks. Following the advice there (/cc (@Midavalo, @Aaron, @whuber, and all other mods), I will post here in a generic way, but with sufficient details you can investigate. This is about a top ranked user in the review queues, reviewing posts in a suspect manner. The user has a history (I can send the links to respective discussions here in chat and meta as well, if you want to). I also have collected some links of recently really bad reviews (can post these too). continues..

Hello moderators. I need to talk to any of you privately. How can I do that? Tks.

Alright guys; thanks!!

@PolyGeo, if you allow me; may I suggest the other Q to be the master merge? Because OP has incorporated some suggestions provided here in the other one. And after inverting the merge direction, this one can be deleted. This would be in the spirit of gis.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4988/….

Where is the Stack Exchange site name in the bot message?

Ok, but you probably you know GIS Meta has a very, very low traffic. Regularly there, have been participated less than five users. So, waiting one or two days would not have compromised the situation in my opinion (suggestion to take into account, next time).

About the 'volunteers' argument we cannot use it for everything. I acknowledge you have done good services for this site, but you seem to have a lot of difficult to give way and even to meet people half way. I think this is one quality a moderator cannot lack. Because of this, it is difficult to me to relieve this side of your moderation style and wanting from you to step out as moderator; but keeping around contributing with your knowledge and also using the +10k moderator tools.

@PolyGeo thanks for explaining. My suggestion here would be to have waited a little bit more, because perhaps more mods could have helped you on this (even if it have ended up in a way you did not agree).

I already got upset other times (it can happens with anyone), but one thing I decided to do was that leaving GIS SE (or putting aside) was too easy for the other person. Instead I encourage everyone here to have a word when one believes he/she has a point. Keep an eye on Meta, keep an eye on main and help this community to grow.

@dbaston I feel bad, because I don't want to promote a witch hunt on PolyGeo, but I think you are right in this particular occasion. One thing is being firm while trying to be the most fair as possible, another thing is being (trying to pick the best word I can) 'bossy'.

*I think one/he does

Does the OP (and everybody else) have the right to express disagreement in Meta to what he sees as inappropriate behaviour from one generic user, while focusing on the user's action/behaviour, without calling him/her out, and without being censored by a peer user? (I think it does). As per my answer is GIS Meta this would not be my first option, but it is an option (see meta.stackexchange.com/questions/66444/…).

The main discussion to me is. Did that question hurt the be nice policy? The way it was edited last time (dbaston's edit) it did not to me, for the reasons already explained in many previous comments. Can a moderator make a drastic change to a question changing its meaning, and overruling the majority of contrary opinion's from peer users with a justification that does not hold? Or does it hold? continues..