Timeline for Can we please be more generous to elementary beginners?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
30 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 9, 2019 at 2:58 | comment | added | Carl Mummert | It seems to me that the actions of the asker are key to evaluating a question. In this case the OP ignored the advice they received when they posted the question, and then didn't edit the question for two days after it was closed. | |
| Apr 6, 2019 at 15:51 | comment | added | Kevin | @quid: Please do not ping my inbox again. I consider the discussion closed and will not respond. | |
| Apr 6, 2019 at 11:23 | comment | added | kcrisman | Well, it probably depends - presumably the sort of asker asking this sort of question may not be able to/be willing to/be interested in taking the time to figure out how all that works. "Your question was deleted" sounds pretty bad to a first-timer who isn't familiar with the culture of these Q&A sites, or so I would presume. But point taken. | |
| Apr 6, 2019 at 11:21 | comment | added | JMoravitz | @kcrisman and if they find a question has been closed or deleted in that time, they as the op still have the ability to see what the discussion and reasons for doing so were and can then improve the existing version and request reopening or ask again with improvements, so I think that is a moot point. | |
| Apr 6, 2019 at 10:21 | comment | added | kcrisman | Not sure what the rest of these comments are about, but I wanted to point out that not every asker necessarily has hours of available internet time to respond within a couple hours to edits or suggestions or even answers. | |
| Apr 6, 2019 at 0:22 | comment | added | quid Mod | 'I wasn't really focused on the "more quickly" angle' features prominently in OP though 'and then immediately voted to delete the post again while it is "on-hold".' | |
| Apr 6, 2019 at 0:17 | history | edited | Kevin | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 125 characters in body
|
| Apr 6, 2019 at 0:16 | comment | added | Kevin | @T.Bongers: I wasn't really focused on the "more quickly" angle so much as the basic "does it get deleted at all?" question. | |
| Apr 6, 2019 at 0:15 | comment | added | user296602 | @Kevin I don't agree with the main point of your post. If an asker is unresponsive to requests to edit their question and improve it, then I'm happy deleting the post more quickly - if the asker won't bother editing their question to bring it up to snuff, it's not the community's job to. On the other hand, a responsive asker who's trying to actively improve their question is a completely different case. | |
| Apr 5, 2019 at 23:51 | comment | added | quid Mod | @T.Bongers it's certainly true that I could, and likely should have, reacted more diplomatically. That said, the point Kevin tries to make is still very weird to me. They seem to jump on a detail without taking the context into account. Again, the entire thread is about taking the postER into account. | |
| Apr 5, 2019 at 23:47 | comment | added | user296602 | @quid I'd like to think it's a reminder that there's a person at the other end of the ethernet cables. Whether you find it constructive or not is up to you. | |
| Apr 5, 2019 at 23:46 | comment | added | quid Mod | @T.Bongers do you think your comment is constructive? | |
| Apr 5, 2019 at 23:44 | comment | added | user296602 | @quid Just out of curiosity, do you expect to have a productive conversation starting from "you either completely misunderstand […] or willfully distort"? Moderators ought to be setting a higher example. | |
| Apr 5, 2019 at 23:35 | comment | added | quid Mod | You either completely misunderstand the entire situation or willfully distort it. My position is: the question should be deleted on its merits, and no we should not make an exception based on the status of main OP contrary to what is suggested by meta OP. | |
| Apr 5, 2019 at 23:24 | comment | added | Kevin | @quid: I said exactly what I meant to say in my answer. I deliberately did not say anything else, because I feel conflicted about the other aspects of this meta, and also because I do not feel that this meta is the proper vehicle for discussing those aspects. I find your continued hostility very uncomfortable, and I do not wish to discuss this matter with you any further. If this is an "attack," then I apologize for offending you. Regardless, I will not respond again. | |
| Apr 5, 2019 at 23:20 | comment | added | quid Mod | Obviously your are attacking me. See first comment in this thread, for instance. Anyway, so I surmise that you agree the question can be deleted without issue, you only object to me discussing the idea with meta OP if and how the status and the actions of main OP should be factored in. | |
| Apr 5, 2019 at 23:14 | comment | added | Kevin | @quid: I am not attacking you. I deliberately avoided assigning any motives to you, and even said that it was a bad question. Clearly, there is nothing more that I can do to change your opinion of me and my answer, but I have done everything in my power to be respectful and evenhanded here. | |
| Apr 5, 2019 at 23:09 | comment | added | quid Mod | I raised a specific point, by pointing out that it seems that your answer is not thought through or willfully manipulative. It is very hard to understand how you in good faith can attack me for taking the OP's action into account, and say nothing regarding this to OP of the meta question. | |
| Apr 5, 2019 at 23:07 | comment | added | Kevin | @quid: This discussion is not related to improving my meta answer, so I will now disengage. | |
| Apr 5, 2019 at 23:04 | comment | added | quid Mod | Also to recall (added emphasis) "The post was very sloppily written." was the first thing I said. | |
| Apr 5, 2019 at 23:00 | comment | added | quid Mod | How is it a false dichotomy? | |
| Apr 5, 2019 at 23:00 | comment | added | Kevin | @quid: I believe that is a false dichotomy, so neither. | |
| Apr 5, 2019 at 22:58 | comment | added | quid Mod | Is your position that questions should be judge on the merits of the post only: yes or no? | |
| Apr 5, 2019 at 22:57 | comment | added | Kevin | @quid: There are no sides. This is about what's best for the site. | |
| Apr 5, 2019 at 22:56 | comment | added | quid Mod | I think your answer in this form is borderline dishonest, especially since your intent is to create vote-turn out, since it is phrased in a way as to appeal to the anti-delete fraction, while when the principle would be thought to its end it would have the exact opposite effect. | |
| Apr 5, 2019 at 22:54 | comment | added | Kevin | @quid: I have mixed feelings about this whole thread. I think it is important that we recognize the privileges we enjoy as people versed in mathematics, which may well justify the asymmetry which you are objecting to. At the same time, I think this discussion is a poor example of the problem. Regardless, I decline to convert my answer, which is specific to a single issue, into a broad statement of opinion which would detract from my point. If you disagree with me, please write your own answer. | |
| Apr 5, 2019 at 22:49 | comment | added | quid Mod | Maybe address the point I raised rather then speculating around. Again, if we agree to judge the question on its merits only the entire thread is pointless. (Which indeed it is, if you ask me, mostly since it's a duplicate.) | |
| Apr 5, 2019 at 22:46 | comment | added | Kevin | @quid: Your ongoing reticence to write an answer, despite clearly holding strong opinions that no other answer expresses, continues to baffle me. | |
| Apr 5, 2019 at 22:43 | comment | added | quid Mod | I assume this goes both ways. If so, please, make it explicit. If not please explain why. In particular, you ought to be in strong disagreement with the question. | |
| Apr 5, 2019 at 22:36 | history | answered | Kevin | CC BY-SA 4.0 |