2
$\begingroup$

The post homomesy and asymptotic behaviour currently ends with "regards, A. Leverkühn". My impression is that the MO policy is not to sign comments, much less posts, but removing this seems like a trivial edit. Is the etiquette to edit, to leave the post unchanged but make a suggestion in comments, or just to leave it alone entirely?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I remember in the earlier version of the SE software such politenesses were automatically deleted by the SE software. They were not wanted. $\endgroup$ – András Bátkai Jan 18 '17 at 21:15
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ See meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/2208/editing-etiquette/… $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Jan 18 '17 at 21:35
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @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'. $\endgroup$ – LSpice Jan 18 '17 at 22:35
  • $\begingroup$ @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? $\endgroup$ – LSpice Jan 18 '17 at 22:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 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). $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Jan 19 '17 at 1:17
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @LSpice You probably mean this post (made by Gerry Myerson): Disappearing “Hi!”. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Jan 19 '17 at 1:45
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – Todd Trimble Jan 19 '17 at 2:01
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – Stefan Kohl Jan 19 '17 at 10:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – Gerhard Paseman Jan 19 '17 at 16:23
  • $\begingroup$ @MartinSleziak, yep, that's the one; thanks! $\endgroup$ – LSpice Jan 19 '17 at 17:27
  • $\begingroup$ @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? $\endgroup$ – LSpice Jan 19 '17 at 17:29
  • $\begingroup$ L Spice, at some point I can do this, yes. $\endgroup$ – Todd Trimble Jan 19 '17 at 17:50
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @GerhardPaseman, I would enjoy MO more if you stopped signing your posts and comments. $\endgroup$ – Matt F. Feb 23 '17 at 9:50
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The stated policy is: Do not use signatures, taglines, or greetings. mathoverflow.net/help/behavior. $\endgroup$ – Matt F. Feb 23 '17 at 9:51
  • $\begingroup$ @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'. $\endgroup$ – LSpice Feb 25 '17 at 14:41
6
$\begingroup$

Since I was asked to make my comment an answer, I'll say that my own personal benchmark for going in and editing a post is where something in it detracts from general standards we seek to maintain (more or less professional, but allowing a level of informality one might find in a seminar). In the present case, the post is well written, and to me the signing is both unobtrusive and suggests politeness, nothing more, so I wouldn't be moved to do anything about it.

Stefan Kohl's comment raises an interesting point, but I doubt that here the intent was to discourage outside edits (even if for some it has that effect). Anyway, if there's something that needs fixing, then one shouldn't worry about fixing it. Sometimes I would bring that up in a comment so that they can fix it themselves, or sometimes it seems simpler to go in and just do it (maybe with an explanatory comment); that's left to individual judgment. If someone bristles at having their post edited -- and that's happened -- best not to get into a lengthy discussion, but rather flag for attention.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

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