Skip to main content

Timeline for Editing signed posts

Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0

19 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 history edited CommunityBot
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
Feb 25, 2017 at 14:41 comment added LSpice @MattF., my question wasn't what the policy is (indeed, I speculated that it was as you say), but rather whether it was worth an edit just to fix a 'violation'.
Feb 23, 2017 at 9:51 comment added user44143 The stated policy is: Do not use signatures, taglines, or greetings. mathoverflow.net/help/behavior.
Feb 23, 2017 at 9:50 comment added user44143 @GerhardPaseman, I would enjoy MO more if you stopped signing your posts and comments.
Jan 21, 2017 at 22:56 vote accept LSpice
Jan 21, 2017 at 22:45 answer added Todd TrimbleMod timeline score: 6
Jan 19, 2017 at 17:50 comment added Todd Trimble Mod L Spice, at some point I can do this, yes.
Jan 19, 2017 at 17:29 comment added LSpice @ToddTrimble, thanks for the update and clarification! I certainly agree that there is no problem with A. Leverkuhn's contribution. (I can't help wondering if it is relevant that the (also very useful and professional) response by Ines Institoris not only is signed, but includes a clearly errant \end{document} ….) Would you be willing to post your comment or some variant as an answer, so that I can accept it?
Jan 19, 2017 at 17:27 comment added LSpice @MartinSleziak, yep, that's the one; thanks!
Jan 19, 2017 at 16:23 comment added Gerhard Paseman Discourage perhaps, but not prevent. In many cases I include my initials along with a substantial edit that I make. Gerhard "Blame Where Blame Is Due" Paseman, 2017.01.19.
Jan 19, 2017 at 10:01 comment added Stefan Kohl Mod I think a main point here is that a signature below a post discourages any editing of that post, as an edit would change what the signing person literally has said.
Jan 19, 2017 at 2:01 comment added Todd Trimble Mod Gerry has referred to a meta post of mine from a little less than 2 years ago, and rereading it now, I am in overall agreement with what I wrote then. Regarding fluff -- although I didn't quite say this then, I think my own benchmark in editing such "fluff" is where it detracts from the general professional standards that we wish to maintain. The MO post of A. Leverkühn seems very professional overall, and the sign-off here doesn't detract in my opinion. So I agree that the edit would indeed be trivial in this instance and probably not worth implementing.
Jan 19, 2017 at 1:45 comment added Martin Sleziak @LSpice You probably mean this post (made by Gerry Myerson): Disappearing “Hi!”.
Jan 19, 2017 at 1:17 comment added Gerry Myerson Sorry, I didn't mean that you'd find an unambiguous, authoritative answer at that link, only that you might be interested in a previous discussion which touched on your question (and maybe this earlier discussion was the source of your impression about MO policy).
Jan 18, 2017 at 22:36 comment added LSpice @GerryMyerson, thanks, but it seems that the post says "delete fluff", while the comments, including from the post author, say "fluff is OK". Does this just mean that it is up to the potential editor's discretion?
Jan 18, 2017 at 22:35 comment added LSpice @AndrásBátkai, automated editing has its own problems; I remember (though I can't find) a post about the difficulties of referring to the work of a mathematician named 'Hi'.
Jan 18, 2017 at 21:35 comment added Gerry Myerson See meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/2208/editing-etiquette/…
Jan 18, 2017 at 21:15 comment added András Bátkai I remember in the earlier version of the SE software such politenesses were automatically deleted by the SE software. They were not wanted.
Jan 18, 2017 at 21:07 history asked LSpice CC BY-SA 3.0