1
$\begingroup$

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?

$\endgroup$
15
  • 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
    Commented Jan 18, 2017 at 21:15
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ See meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/2208/editing-etiquette/… $\endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    Commented Jan 18, 2017 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
    Commented Jan 18, 2017 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
    Commented Jan 18, 2017 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
    Commented Jan 19, 2017 at 1:17
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @LSpice You probably mean this post (made by Gerry Myerson): Disappearing “Hi!”. $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Commented Jan 19, 2017 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 Mod
    Commented Jan 19, 2017 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 Mod
    Commented Jan 19, 2017 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
    Commented Jan 19, 2017 at 16:23
  • $\begingroup$ @MartinSleziak, yep, that's the one; thanks! $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Commented Jan 19, 2017 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
    Commented Jan 19, 2017 at 17:29
  • $\begingroup$ L Spice, at some point I can do this, yes. $\endgroup$
    – Todd Trimble Mod
    Commented Jan 19, 2017 at 17:50
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @GerhardPaseman, I would enjoy MO more if you stopped signing your posts and comments. $\endgroup$
    – user44143
    Commented Feb 23, 2017 at 9:50
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The stated policy is: Do not use signatures, taglines, or greetings. mathoverflow.net/help/behavior. $\endgroup$
    – user44143
    Commented Feb 23, 2017 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
    Commented Feb 25, 2017 at 14:41

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
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 .