Timeline for Question having excellent answer marked as dupe of a newer question
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 29, 2016 at 7:06 | comment | added | user26857 | Even if I'd have known the older thread I'd have posted an answer since the question from 2014 is more precise and likely more helpful for other users than the one from 2012 where the OP proposed a completely wrong proof and basically asked for a verification. The correct proof appears at some moment into the answer, but it is not complete, leaving to the reader the last shot. | |
| Jan 27, 2016 at 22:52 | comment | added | quid | If anything I could see an argument the older as proof-verification question is sufficiently different that both can stay open. But again I think the closure was correct and I vote like so too. | |
| Jan 27, 2016 at 22:49 | comment | added | quid | @GerryMyerson I do not consider this is a particularly good case for merging. The older is a proof-verification question with an incorrect attempt. The answer there addresses this attempt before giving a correct proof. If this should be merged the first half of the answer would have to be deleted. In the other way a problem is that the important part of the older question is just a scan. (Moreover the other answers would look incomplete there.) Really, I think the original action was just fine and in line with (proposed?) policy: proof-verification q are answered but eventually dupe closed. | |
| Jan 27, 2016 at 22:29 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | Is it not possible for a moderator to merge the two questions? | |
| Jan 27, 2016 at 15:11 | comment | added | quid | @GEdgar yes, I meant stay open. | |
| Jan 27, 2016 at 15:08 | comment | added | GEdgar | Of course both should stay. When one is closed as a duplicate, it is still there. We only have to ward off the over-eager delete vigilantes. | |
| Jan 27, 2016 at 14:08 | comment | added | quid | In stead of "not to cast a binding vote" I likely should say "to cast a not binding vote" (as obviously they could theoretically just not vote at all). | |
| Jan 27, 2016 at 14:01 | history | answered | quid | CC BY-SA 3.0 |