Timeline for Why my edit to remove irrelevant commentary was rejected?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
33 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 17, 2022 at 3:22 | comment | added | D.W. | See also math.meta.stackexchange.com/a/34448/14578 for my impressions of the site culture on edits, which may be relevant. | |
| Jan 5, 2022 at 20:04 | comment | added | amWhy | Great! Thanks, @Pedro! | |
| Jan 5, 2022 at 20:00 | comment | added | Pedro Mod | @amWhy I have updated the answer below to point out to the review guidelines. Good idea. | |
| Jan 5, 2022 at 19:59 | vote | accept | desertnaut | ||
| Jan 5, 2022 at 19:56 | answer | added | PedroMod | timeline score: 8 | |
| Jan 5, 2022 at 18:59 | comment | added | desertnaut | @PedroTamaroff at the end of the day, the situation was simple: I just posted a question in a Meta site for discussion. Is the question legitimate? Then, instead of cryptic comments and acts in which you only half-believe (like editing the post), please post an answer and explain! Is the question not legitimate? Then close it as such! Except if not doing so is one of the idiosyncrasies here I should know about... | |
| Jan 5, 2022 at 18:55 | comment | added | desertnaut | @PedroTamaroff sorry, still not following; I have been listening and I have been learning, and arguably that's what such discussions are for. This one was practically concluded, until you decided to make a dramatic re-entry and restart it. Only 2 days here, but I regret to say that, for all your 10 yrs & mod status, you don't seem to have learned much in how to handle such situations :( | |
| Jan 5, 2022 at 18:53 | comment | added | amWhy | Thanks again, @Xander for compiling many suggestions on suggested edits, into an FAQ post! | |
| Jan 5, 2022 at 18:50 | comment | added | amWhy | @Pedro and desertnaut, and all other parties, Pedro acted too early. In fact, suggested edits should never be used only for removing "hello's/good-byes" at the suggested edit level. It is okay if an edit suggestion for a non-trivial edit was the primary motive for editing. Please consult Xander's FAQ How to make or suggest good edits. Head's up, Pedro! | |
| Jan 5, 2022 at 17:54 | comment | added | Pedro Mod | Just let me reiterate that I agree with you in that the edit should have been improved, but that I think parts of the original intended message were useful. My edit was perhaps too hasty, but for an 8 year old post, perhaps not much was lost. | |
| Jan 5, 2022 at 17:53 | comment | added | Pedro Mod | @desertnaut I am simply suggesting a course of action that may be slightly more productive, though you are free to choose the one you find more fitting. Of course I acknowledge that you have participated in other sites, I am merely reminding you (it seems like other users are doing so, too) that different SE sites have different approaches to edits, close votes, etc. | |
| Jan 5, 2022 at 17:30 | comment | added | user1729 | (Formative experience from my younger days: I once made a mature student cry because I didn't understand the importance of them "being out of school for a long time". It matters a lot.) | |
| Jan 5, 2022 at 17:26 | comment | added | user1729 | I think that every part of the first sentence (and not just the bit about it being an assignment) adds to the question in a meaningful way. Asking for help "understanding the theory" is telling you what kind of question they are after, while teaching people who have been "out of school for a long time" is very different to teaching someone who has been in school continuously (e.g. age, forgotten knowledge, and other things like nervousness), and so also tells you the kind of answer they are after. | |
| Jan 5, 2022 at 15:59 | comment | added | desertnaut | @PedroTamaroff indeed (I can count), but arguably ~ 7 years in 4 other SE sites make me not a complete stranger; and, as it turns out, I had suggested an edit which was adopted after having been rejected, which the post was specifically about. Puzzled by your tone here, from where I am standing this is just an informal, exploratory exchange (as you seem to suggest), and no one is obliged to participate if they feel they are just wasting their time. Should you suggest I should follow a "shut up and listen to the old boys" attitude, kindly say so explicitly :/ | |
| Jan 5, 2022 at 15:02 | comment | added | Pedro Mod | @desertnaut You have been a member of the site for two days. Perhaps it is prudent to take a moment and explore the site's dynamics and maybe unexpected idiosyncrasies before engaging in long back-and-forths that are not leading us anywhere but to a "does not, does too" situation. :/ | |
| Jan 5, 2022 at 12:14 | comment | added | desertnaut | @GerryMyerson Yes, because you are actually using it in order to implicitly specify the constraints a requested solution must specify, which does makes sense indeed; but as a general requirement in a SE context, it does sound weird in the first place - plus it opens the door for potentially awkward arguments like "why did you remove the word "assignment" from here, which does provide the necessary context?" (well, sorry, it does certainly not). | |
| Jan 5, 2022 at 3:18 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | If there are two ways to answer a question, a brilliant way that makes everything crystal clear but requires access to deep results in algebraic geometry, stochastic differential equations, and homotopy type theory, and an uninspiring calculational slog that requires nothing beyond adding fractions, then it really helps to know the background of the person posting the question, if you want to optimize the usefulness of your answer. Nothing weird there. Not in the least. | |
| Jan 5, 2022 at 3:09 | comment | added | desertnaut | @GerryMyerson thanks for the interesting link; nothing unexpected, except that "Indicate your own background [so that we can know the audience]", which sounds to me really weird, and seemingly contrary to what I think I have understood as a general SE rule answering questions for ~ 7 years in at least 4 different SE sites (namely that a question must have a value on its own, regardless from the specifics of the OPs). In any case, the post here was for a very specific question, and I have yet to see an argument why the mere presence of the term "assignment" provides any real context. | |
| Jan 5, 2022 at 2:58 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | Also of possible interest, math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1803/… and math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/34059/… and math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/33508/… | |
| Jan 5, 2022 at 2:54 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | Newcomers are not expected to know the subtleties of math.stackexchange. Even those of us who have been here ten years and longer are occasionally caught short. You asked whether you were missing something, so I told you what you were missing. I didn't say it was your fault. Now: do you want to argue about the word assignment in isolation, or do you want to know more generally what's expected of a good question on math.stackexchange? I think the latter is the better idea, so I direct you to math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9959/… | |
| Jan 5, 2022 at 1:35 | comment | added | hardmath | For me the issue is removing context vs. getting users to provide it. | |
| Jan 5, 2022 at 0:53 | history | edited | desertnaut | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 10 characters in body; edited title
|
| Jan 5, 2022 at 0:27 | comment | added | desertnaut | @hardmath I kindly suggest you entertain the possibility that I only saw irrelevant meta-commentary, without anything special in the term "assignment" itself. Re "If you thought more context was appropriate", I again do not follow - I did not imply anything of the sort. For me, the post now is as it should be in the first place - no clutter, no distractions. | |
| Jan 5, 2022 at 0:23 | comment | added | desertnaut | @GerryMyerson thanks, I have explicitly asked "am I missing something?" in the post; I understand that each SE site may have its own subtleties but arguably newcomers are not supposed to know them from day 1, right? BTW, care to share some references, preferably applicable to the specific case, i.e. how the mere mention of the term "assignment" here without anything else whatsoever provides useful context? | |
| Jan 5, 2022 at 0:20 | comment | added | hardmath | At best you wasted your time. At worst you bumped the 8 year old Question to make a point about how you don't see as context that the problem came from "an assignment" and that the poster has "been out of school for a long time." If you thought more context was appropriate, you could have left a Comment to that effect. Between your efforts and Pedro's the Question currently lacks anything in the way of context. | |
| Jan 4, 2022 at 23:59 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | In the context of math.stackexchange, adding the term "assignment" most assuredly does add context. We have fought bitter wars about this. | |
| Jan 4, 2022 at 23:36 | comment | added | Pedro Mod | Hm, the post is short enough that clutter seems like an overstatement, but I have removed the first opening paragraph anyways. Cheers, | |
| Jan 4, 2022 at 23:15 | comment | added | desertnaut | @PedroTamaroff evidently, there is nothing of the sorts here; adding the term "asignment" does not offer any actual context. And you chose to edit, and still leave there clutter, like "I am finding hard to grasp. I would appreciate some help understanding the theory". Sorry, still not following :( I bumped upon the question ~ 8 years after it was posted, and I cannot imagine anyone appreciating knowing that it came from some unspecified assignment, 8 years ago, or a mod bothering to edit and still leave (other) clutter there... | |
| Jan 4, 2022 at 23:12 | comment | added | Pedro Mod | I do agree with you it is a comment that can mostly go. Some people appreciate knowing when questions come from assignments (in particular if there is a book to reference, say, which answerers can consult). But I don't see any harm in the comment going away or being reworded to be more useful. | |
| Jan 4, 2022 at 23:09 | comment | added | desertnaut | @PedroTamaroff thanks, but I am not following. Why "partially"? I saw your edit - what exactly in "I have been out of school for a long time and have an assignment that I am finding hard to grasp. I would appreciate some help understanding the theory" gives useful context here regarding the question? | |
| Jan 4, 2022 at 23:07 | comment | added | Pedro Mod | In this case, the best course of action seems to improve the edit. | |
| Jan 4, 2022 at 23:04 | comment | added | Pedro Mod | Unclear. Both meta comments should be partially removed, though you should be careful about removing information that gives context. The second comment definitely should go. In the first, you could think about not removing the fact the question comes from an assignment. | |
| Jan 4, 2022 at 22:57 | history | asked | desertnaut | CC BY-SA 4.0 |