2
$\begingroup$

Who can explain me the strange things that happen all the way with my question about the Mendeleev table here? At the beginning I could not edit it or make comments after it. That's why I tried to give my own answers to it, but my first answer was deleted. I wrote another one, and today somebody deleted the chain of comments after it (my talk with the users with names dimension10 and Mitchell Porter).

So I'd like to find out, what is the idea? If the person who does this wants to inspire me with something, I suggest him to do this openly. If I violate some rules, or do something wrong, it will be much more honest to tell me this directly, than to compel me to catch anonymous hints. If not, then I believe there is a very interesting explanation of this phenomena, that resembles discrimination so much.

Thank you in advance.

| |
$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

The post had been migrated from TheoreticalPhysics.SE, and there must have been some glitch in the user account reassociation. That's why you couldn't comment initially (which was fixed later when this was brought to my attention)

Your deleted post wasn't an answer, it was a remark, which is why it wa deleted. It should have been a comment or an edit to the question. Of course, at the time, you could do neither (you'll find that you can do both now), so it's understandable that this frustrated you.

The comment thread was getting long and wasn't so constructive, which is probably why it got deleted. Your stance there was a bit aggressive as well, you seemed to be asserting that nobody but a mathematician would understand what you meant, which can be taken as offensive. This may have contributed to the reason for deletion. Please be nice on this network.

Comments are not for discussion. If you see something wrong or want to suggest an improvement, you use a comment. If a comment thread is becoming a discussion, or if you wish to hold one, you go to chat. On Stack Exchange, comments are considered third-class citizens -- can be deleted without reason. In this case, the bulk of the conversation had already been moved to chat, so there shouldn't have been an issue deleting them. Usually, comments are deleted when they can no longer serve their purpose, that is, they can no longer result in improvements to the post. This can happen if the author either incorporates the suggestions (or corrects the mistakes), or gives a refusal to do so1.

Regarding the "correction in tone" here, that was my fault: Someone had flagged the comment, and I felt that it was best to tone it down a bit.

1. There's nothing wrong with refusing changes or corrections. However, many a time it renders the comments useless, so these things get deleted.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "you seemed to be asserting that nobody but a mathematician would understand what you meant, which can be taken as offensive" -- what would you advice me to do if I see that interlocutors here don't understand what mathematical proof is? I would like to be nice, but I don't see how this can be done technically. $\endgroup$ – Sergei Akbarov Jul 5 '13 at 20:26
  • $\begingroup$ @SergeiAkbarov Don't make assumptions based on age or occupation. Instead, just try to explain it "Here's what I mean by a mathematical proof: ...". Remember, as a physics site, if you want a good question or answer, you need to make these things clearer. $\endgroup$ – Manishearth Jul 5 '13 at 20:30
  • $\begingroup$ @Sergei Thing is, a comment like "I don't see how physicists would understand this" adds nothing, and is abrasive to boot. A better option can be "I'm not sure how to explain this, sorry". A much better option can be "I'll try to explain it in more detail: <explanation>", a much, much much better option is "I've edited an explanation of what I mean into the question/answer" (and, of course, that is accompanied by an edit) $\endgroup$ – Manishearth Jul 5 '13 at 20:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ From the very beginning what people wrote here looked, you know, offensive for me. For example "this is off-topic" and "a standard textbook question". The further discussion (here and in MO) showed that this is not so (do you agree, or not, by the way?). My questions in this connection: where are those comments? And what should I do if I find a comment here offensive? $\endgroup$ – Sergei Akbarov Jul 5 '13 at 20:54
  • $\begingroup$ @SergeiAkbarov Such comments indicate the suitability of a question for the site -- unfortunately we don't readily delete those. Comments saying that a post is inacceptable or wrong are OK (sort of), comments making assumptions about a user or any form of personal attack are not. In general, if you find a comment too abrasive, flag it. $\endgroup$ – Manishearth Jul 5 '13 at 21:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Eventually they were deleted. Why was this done? $\endgroup$ – Sergei Akbarov Jul 5 '13 at 21:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ And you didn't say if you are agree that my question is "a standard textbook question". $\endgroup$ – Sergei Akbarov Jul 5 '13 at 21:05
  • $\begingroup$ @SergeiAkbarov I don't know. Most probably because they were old comments, reflecting the scope of a different site (TheorPhys.SE). At first glance it does look like a standard textbook q, but on looking at the other comments it seems that you wanted one thing and most people interpreted it as something else (I suggest you clarify what you want to derive in the question) $\endgroup$ – Manishearth Jul 5 '13 at 21:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "I suggest you clarify what you want" -- I wanted to do this from the very beginning, but your colleagues immediately striped me of this possibility. I suppose, you agree that this gives me ground to be displeased (and "a bit aggressive"). $\endgroup$ – Sergei Akbarov Jul 5 '13 at 21:25
  • $\begingroup$ @SergeiAkbarov Note that the initial comments were from TheoreticalPhysics.SE -- that's a different site, with a restrictive scope. To them, your question was off topic, period. It's not that way here. The new comments (on our answer, etc) should have made it clear that there may have been a miscommunication in the intentions behind the question. $\endgroup$ – Manishearth Jul 5 '13 at 21:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I am indeed surprised that there appear people here who seem to understand the problem, but I can't understand how can this be that "a standard textbook question" for TheoreticalPhysics.SE is not "a standard textbook question" here. Don't you see an elementary contradiction here? $\endgroup$ – Sergei Akbarov Jul 5 '13 at 22:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ My point is that the sigh "standard textbook" is formally speaking a proposition that is either true, or false. And it is false, because nobody gave a reference on this textbook after this sigh. You reproach me for aggressivity, but from the very beginning what happened here (and at TheoreticalPhysics.SE) was formally speaking an insult for me, because I had been banned under a false accusation. I will continue this experiment, as you suggest, but just for references I would like our dialogue to be preserved. I hope, this is possible. $\endgroup$ – Sergei Akbarov Jul 5 '13 at 23:04
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @SergeiAkbarov And you are holding me responsible for things way beyond my control. You had not been banned, at any point, not on Physics.SE. And no, for a grade schooler "Misner, Thorne, Wheeler" is not a standard textbook, but it is for an astrophysicist. The definitions of "standard" change as you move from circle to circle. And it was an exaggeration. They didn't need to specify a textbook, basically they were saying that your question was textbook-level, not research level. $\endgroup$ – Manishearth Jul 5 '13 at 23:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don't blame you personally, but 1) I had no possibility to make corrections or to give comments for 1.5 year. I don't see the difference with banning. 2) For proving that my question is a textbook level it is necessary to give a reference, isn't it? I dare to claim that this textbook is not written up to now. If you defend people at TheoreticalPhysics.SE you can give me this reference. (I only hope, that this will not bring us into a discussion of what mathematical proof is.) $\endgroup$ – Sergei Akbarov Jul 5 '13 at 23:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I expected this. But I already sketched something, so I post it: 1) I don't know how this could be verified, whether I was banned or this was what you say. For me, the outsider, there is no difference. 2) Here is our divergence: "Nobody needs to "prove" that the question is textbook level". I believe, before doing something what can be perceived as offensive, you should verify whether the OP indeed asks something stupid. And give him a possibility to appeal. $\endgroup$ – Sergei Akbarov Jul 5 '13 at 23:38

You must log in to answer this question.

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