-4
$\begingroup$

In my first complaint I was asked to give examples which would reveal who was doing it and I said:

"I thought about doing that, but if I do that, then everyone will see who he/she is, which might help to get the problem solved faster, but at the expense of someone's dignity. Do you really need to see the proof?"

and

"I don't want to start a fight with someone on this forum, and would like to remain friends with as many people as possible, so I won't reveal their name publicly. They are not deliberately damaging the posts, I believe they "mean well" and are honestly trying to improve things, but it is far from asked for, and not being even remotely close to an expert in my field, the questions to get damaged and sometimes even downvoted because they don't make sense."

Blue answered the question saying that s/he thought my complaint was about Blue (which was correct, but I didn't say that myself), and said that I should not be afraid to name the people that I'm complaining about. That answer is now deleted, but it said:

"By the way, I do realize that I have been a bit too enthusiastic regarding editing posts and have single-handedly made quite a few "trivial" edits which we could have done without. Thankfully, I have been pointed this out by at least two members of this site. So I've decided to leave a comment (explaining possible improvements to a post) at least 24 hours before making a direct single-handed edit, (except in the blatantly obvious cases of MathJax/tag misuse by new posters)."

However this promise that Blue made about leaving a comment suggesting an edit, rather than going ahead an editing by themselves, was not followed by Blue when making this edit.

Blue has deleted their comments from that question, but in them, Blue had promised again to leave a comment suggesting for me to make my own edit, rather than going ahead and editing themselves. However it happened a third time even after making the promise for the second time.

The problem with this most recent example, is that the question asked whether XNOR was CCNOT, and the first line of my answer was "It is not CCNOT". Then Blue changed the question to "CNOT", which makes my answer incorrect.

If the question is "Can the XNOR be thought of as a CNOT?"
Then the answer "No it cannot be thought of as a CCNOT"

makes absolutely no sense, and my answer was actually "un-chosen", a new answer popped up which was more suited to Blue's edited version of the question, and then that answer got "chosen".

I wonder if we can add to the "comment policy", not to change anything unless it's an obvious grammar error, or spelling mistake, or a broken link to a deleted website, etc. ??

For things like changing a link of an abstract to a PDF, or changing the grammar of something whose grammar is not technically incorrect, or changing the format of the citations given in a question (from being just a regular link, to being a Harvard style or Chicago style or PRL style reference), would it hurt to just leave a comment and let the person who wrote the question or answer make the edit themselves if they agree with it ?

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

As far as that particular edit is concerned, the original post had terrible formatting and incorrect spellings initially:

enter image description here

I changed it to:

enter image description here

Changing "controled cnot gate" to "CNOT" was a mistake (can't remember why I missed adding the "controlled" word). Anyhow I'd classify that as a one-time human error.

Your edit simply added another "C" to fit with the original version i.e. "CCNOT".

It's a bit disappointing when you cherry pick such trivial errors which would would be corrected by the community (or perhaps myself) anyway (within a day or so) and neglect all the other useful edits ("useful" is a subjective word).

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ I'm sorry to hear that you are disappointed about the "cherry picking". It's happened three times to me, and at least twice caused negative consequences to me, in my opinion. As for CCNOT, my answer already said "It's not CCNOT" so changing the question to ask about "CNOT" instead of CCNOT actually make my answer suddenly invalid. As for your "other useful edits", I do agree you have made a lot of useful ones, and I mentioned that in my previous postings/comments, even a bit in this question itself. $\endgroup$ Jun 19, 2018 at 16:06
  • $\begingroup$ However, honestly I think there's better ways to spend your time sometimes. In this case you made a lot of good edits, but in some cases you're just adding a $[\dagger]$ for some reference, or adding MathJax where it's not necessarily desired by the OP (there's many reasons why someone might not want to use MathJax for an X gate for example, since it adds complexity that might not show up on certain browsers). $\endgroup$ Jun 19, 2018 at 16:08
  • $\begingroup$ Have you read my question Blue? I am asking to add to that policy that you quote. $\endgroup$ Jun 19, 2018 at 16:18
  • $\begingroup$ Putting "this site may not be the site for you" on the same day as telling me "no one is forcing you to answer questions or even participate here", after also telling me one time "you can leave", violates the "be nice policy" in my opinion. $\endgroup$ Jun 19, 2018 at 16:19

You must log in to answer this question.

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