Skip to main content
17 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Oct 29, 2022 at 8:03 answer added Martin Sleziak timeline score: 3
Oct 17, 2022 at 17:20 history became hot meta post
Oct 17, 2022 at 16:19 comment added Xander Henderson The question was deemed unsuitable for Math SE (by a vote of five users, including myself). When a question is closed after migration, it is "returned" to the originating site. The fact that the question was "genuine" is not really relevant. The problem with the question, vis-a-vis standards at Math SE, is that it is too broad, and doesn't really admit an objective answer (it was closed for being "opinion based").
Oct 17, 2022 at 15:34 comment added Yemon Choi Indeed I was not aware of this - thanks @MartinSleziak. Well in that case this removes most of my reason/concern for asking this question.
Oct 17, 2022 at 15:29 comment added YCor @MartinSleziak thanks for mentioning this point (I'm actually not sure OP was aware of this, since the formulation "pass the hot potato back to us" suggested a deliberate choice of migration).
Oct 17, 2022 at 15:24 comment added Martin Sleziak @YCor Just to make sure that you're aware that the part about "should have chosen between closure and leaving question open" isn't possible due to limits imposed by the Stack Exchange software. If a question is migrated and it is closed on the target site for a reason other than duplicate, then it is migrated back to the original site. This is explained in the FAQ post: What is migration and how does it work?
Oct 17, 2022 at 7:37 comment added YCor I think that (1) migration to MathSE was a reasonable choice (2) that remigration from MathSE was a poor choice (especially knowing that it's been migrated from here); they should have chosen between closure and leaving the question open (3) given the migration from MathSE, migrating the question to MathSE is no longer an option, so I don't really see any "hot potato": if the question is considered not suitable for MO, it should be closed and deleted.
Oct 16, 2022 at 11:47 comment added Yemon Choi Good point @MartinSleziak - done now.
Oct 16, 2022 at 11:46 history edited Yemon Choi
added specific-question tag
Oct 16, 2022 at 11:06 comment added Martin Sleziak Maybe it would be good to clarify whether the question is what to do with rejected migrations in general, or whether it is about this particular question. (If it's the latter, adding (specific-question) would be a suitable tag for this question.)
Oct 16, 2022 at 7:18 comment added Martin Sleziak For quicker access, here is the revision history and timeline of the MO post, and revision history and timeline of the MSE post.
Oct 16, 2022 at 7:15 history edited Martin Sleziak
edited tags
Oct 16, 2022 at 0:55 comment added LSpice Re, yes, I meant by "specific past argumentation" that I guessed that you were anticipating the tendency to invoke the name.
Oct 16, 2022 at 0:22 comment added Yemon Choi @LSpice I have no great objection to your edit but I am genuinely a bit unsure what you are referring to with "the name was clearly included in response to specific past argumentation... I think that (pre-)personalising an argument is rarely productive". I included the name in quoteation marks, referring to a tendency to invoke that particular person of genius to support a certain rhetorical position. Plus I remember reading some of that person's much-referenced article about 20 years ago, long before MO
Oct 16, 2022 at 0:02 comment added LSpice I edited to remove a name. While the name was clearly included in response to specific past argumentation, that argumentation has not (yet?) occurred here. I think that (pre-)personalising an argument is rarely productive, and hope we can avoid mentioning names non-essentially. Of course, please feel free to put the name back if you find that it is essential.
Oct 16, 2022 at 0:01 history edited LSpice CC BY-SA 4.0
Typo; removed a name
Oct 15, 2022 at 19:54 history asked Yemon Choi CC BY-SA 4.0