2
$\begingroup$

There is a pending edit to user Riemann's (not the mathematician) answer to Evaluating Limit Question. It adds content to the answer, which seems useful but should not be attributed to the original answerer unless the two are the same person. I tried to reject it with a custom reason saying this. The site said Buster, we need a better reason for this.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ While it has nothing to do with the issue, it took me a minute to understand that Riemann is a user on the site and not the great 18th century mathematician (which may have solved this problem over lunch, or something like that) $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Apr 12, 2012 at 14:15
  • $\begingroup$ @AsafKaragila: I have edited the question to remove that confusion. Perhaps this is unfortunate, as I was amused by your comment and this will spoil it for others. $\endgroup$ Apr 12, 2012 at 14:17
  • $\begingroup$ I was trying to point an amusing observation... :-) Should I remove my comment? $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Apr 12, 2012 at 14:50
  • $\begingroup$ @AsafKaragila: No need. As I implied, I was amused. When I said "this" is unfortunate, I meant the edit, not the confusion. $\endgroup$ Apr 12, 2012 at 15:10

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

Sorry about that; this was a bug that would lead to any rejection with a costum reason begin rejected. Fixed now.

Also see Sorry buster, we are going to need a valid reason.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .