Not signed in (Sign In)

Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Community: Crank post to flag as spam

Bottom of Page

51 to 78 of 78

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. >
  1.  

    @voloch, remember you can flag for moderator attention (and even email moderators@mathoverflow.net, if there's something you feel deserves urgent attention). We don't run out. :-)

  2.  
  3.  
    • CommentAuthorArtie
    • CommentTimeApr 29th 2013 edited
     

    User larry is experiencing some severe Weltschmerz here: http://mathoverflow.net/questions/129128/uniqueness-of-deformation-family/129130#129130.

  5.  
  6.  
  7.  
  8.  
  9.  
  10.  
    darij: User max who gave this bs answer has a history of giving answers of this type (all deleted by now).
  11.  
    Actually, it turned out, not all max "answers" are deleted, maybe more "spam" flags would help.
    • CommentAuthorquid
    • CommentTimeMay 30th 2013 edited
     
    Pure spam (possibly attracted by "mechanics" in the title?):

    [done] http://mathoverflow.net/questions/66377/why-is-differentiating-mechanics-and-integration-art/132364#132364

    There is also a link to soem youtube thing on the userpage (not sure if this is generally removed by mods).

    Added: Another one

    [done] http://mathoverflow.net/questions/132365/how-is-made-the-retrodynamic-effect-formula
  13.  
  14.  
    I don't know if it's borderline crank spam or not, but it is worth a "honorable mention" for bringing to MO an argument against ZFC given by W.M.:

    http://mathoverflow.net/questions/44095/arguments-against-large-cardinals/133309#133309
    • CommentAuthorYemon Choi
    • CommentTimeJun 10th 2013
     
    Asaf: and the follow up suggests sock-puppetry related to recent sources of headaches:

    http://mathoverflow.net/questions/44095/arguments-against-large-cardinals/133318#133318
    • CommentAuthorquid
    • CommentTimeJun 17th 2013 edited
     

    Galois theory seems to be completely flawed

    [done] http://mathoverflow.net/questions/2791/understanding-gal-bar-q-q/133987#133987

  17.  

    Please stop feeding trolls!

    • CommentAuthorquid
    • CommentTimeJun 22nd 2013
     

    @François G. Dorais: could you please elaborate what you mean.

  19.  

    This is off-topic, but looking at the page quid linked to three comments ago, I have a hard time understanding why Lavender Honey deleted his/her apparently very well-received answer.

  20.  
    In general, if you are engaged in a long conversation in MO that doesn't seem to move forward, you may want to consider the title of this thread before wasting much more of your time.
  21.  
    @Todd: Lavender Honey has exhibited a strong tendency to delete any answers that are not accepted, even if they are really good and suggest a substantial investment of effort. Sometimes the deletion happens within a few days, and sometimes it takes a few years.
    • CommentAuthorquid
    • CommentTimeJun 22nd 2013 edited
     

    @Scott Carnahan: thank you for the explanation so I take it this is meant as an encouragement of the activity of this thread (i.e., deletions without much discussion in clear case) as opposed to François G. Dorais being against this thread, which was rather my initial reading.

  23.  

    @Scott: thanks for the explanation. That's too bad. I can sympathize in a small way, but if I were to give advice to LH, I'd just remind him/her of how inherently silly and even absurd are many voting and answer-acceptance patterns (so: don't take it seriously). Even some high-rep users can be very, very silly people. :-)

    • CommentAuthorWill Jagy
    • CommentTimeJun 22nd 2013
     
    @Scott, good point, Lavender Honey/Powerpuff, after two years, deleted at http://mathoverflow.net/questions/23943/can-a-positive-binary-quadratic-form-represent-14-consecutive-numbers . I was new at this in 2010, these days I would accept an answer that says "The best answer uses conjecture X, here's why you cannot expect much progress without it."
  25.  

    After migration, we will be able to undelete answers (3 votes). It would help if Scott or the other moderators provided us with a list of answers that have been self-deleted and yet seem worth preserving.

    • CommentAuthorquid
    • CommentTimeJun 22nd 2013
     

    I hesitate to continue this discussion here, but personally I would be very hesitant to undelete an answer an active user deleted (you might preserve the one and loose all the potential future ones in the process...). Also, AFAIK, moderators could anyway have undeleted them all along, and +10k users can see them (and the fact that it happens relatively conviently in a list). So I do not see why migration changes much anything, and even if it would I would be still against such undeletion activities.

    • CommentAuthorYemon Choi
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2013
     
    Repeat offender: someone who is convinced (by RH crankery) that they have found a mistake in Cauchy's theorem from complex analysis. http://mathoverflow.net/questions/134594/not-analytic-riemann-zeta-function I think this warrants immediate suspension.
    • CommentAuthorThe User
    • CommentTimeJul 23rd 2013 edited
     

    http://mathoverflow.net/a/137465/ http://mathoverflow.net/questions/137461/reference-request

    Any suggestions how to deal with him? Aren’t there any moderator tools to block his IP for a day or two? (it is really annoying that he can just create a new account immediately)

    He even got some up-votes, I guess he has already created a new account…

51 to 78 of 78

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. >
Back to Discussions Top of Page