This question already has an answer here:

The alleged duplicates being

What's behind false question characterisations such as this one?



One about false off-topic charges and the other about false characterisations as "simple mistake". Different questions falsely characterised as "exact duplicates" (Edit: http://i.imgur.com/EPjBUoj.png "This question was merged with ... because it is an exact duplicate of that question") as justification for a lock.

People aren't normally that sloppy around here, are they?

marked as duplicate by Oleksandr R., ilian, chuy, bbgodfrey, J. M. will be back soon Jul 30 '15 at 0:41

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • 1
    I feel like we're being trolled. Do you have two different accounts? – rcollyer Jul 29 '15 at 20:57
  • @ Oleksandr Very funny :-) – ChrisJJ Jul 29 '15 at 23:31

The root cause of the two questions is identical: the answer to the user's original questions were easily findable by looking through the documentation. Then, the meta-questions were practically identical. The wording may have differed (slightly), but the essence of each question/accusation remained the same.

  • "The root cause of the two questions is identical" So, not "exact duplicates", then? "the essence of each question/accusation remained the same." So, not "exact duplicates", then? – ChrisJJ Jul 29 '15 at 21:44
  • 2
    @ChrisJJ I'm tempted to label you a troll and be done with you. If you have not read the help center pages, please do so, now. Next, your tone is accusatory and critical, without any apparent self-reflection. We are trying to help. But, we are a group of unpayed volunteers, and repeated attempts to generate discord generally are met unfavorably. If you have issues, meta is an ok place, but most times Mathematica Chat is superior and can meet your needs immediately. Oh, and when I originally wrote that answer, they were marked as off-topic. – rcollyer Jul 29 '15 at 22:08
  • @rcollyer As a counterpoint I'll offer this: some people read rules quite literally, are bothered when reality doesn't appear to match written description, and openly seek to understand the real rules better. I am one of them. I actually got summarily banned from a forum recently because of it. I still feel the action was unjust as my appeals were ignored, but if I appeared to them the way Chris appears to you I may at least understand it better. I believe users should always be free to ask about the rules. And maybe it's hard not to be snarky when you feel you aren't? – Mr.Wizard Jul 29 '15 at 22:48
  • " If you have not read the help center pages, please do so, now." I have read them thanks. They shed no light on why people are false claiming these messages to be "exact duplicates" and then suggesting I am a troll for asking about it. "Oh, and when I originally wrote that answer, they were marked as off-topic." Accepted. After my question about that false marking "off-topic", that marking was removed. "repeated attempts to generate discord generally are met unfavorably" Please accept my questions here as repeated attempts for insight into the discord caused by false marking of my messages. – ChrisJJ Jul 29 '15 at 23:09
  • @ChrisJJ Regarding "that marking was removed" as noted here I felt these questions should have been marked as "already has an answer here" instead so I re-opened them and marked them that way after finding the appropriate originals. – Mr.Wizard Jul 29 '15 at 23:12
  • @Mr.Wizard "so I re-opened them and marked them that way" Thanks for making those corrections. – ChrisJJ Jul 29 '15 at 23:15
  • 1
    @Mr.Wizard I have the opposite problem, i read multiple meanings into even slightly ambiguous statements. It is because of the lack of cues we get with face-to-face interaction, tone becomes vital as things can be easily misconstrued. Asking about the rules is a great idea, and is vital to adapting to a community. But, his phrasing seemed deliberately accusatory and confrontational which caused quite a few people to react badly, especially when he seemed intransigent. – rcollyer Jul 30 '15 at 1:25
  • @ChrisJJ I appreciate your attempts at understanding, but you must understand how it was perceived. (see my comment to MrW, above). Now, the phrase, "false", is a matter of opinion, and the original close reason, was also a matter of opinion. This is important. The content on the site is potentially in a constant state of flux as it is editable by anyone (within some limits). We try to ensure the content is on topic, correct, and relevant, but as an all volunteer force we do make mistakes. In the long-term, these are usually corrected. – rcollyer Jul 30 '15 at 1:47
  • 2
    @ChrisJJ (cont’d) That said, your meta questions were quite explicit: we were in the wrong. There was no attempt at dialogue, and your comments suggested there was little attempt at understanding. That was one reason I suggested using Mathematica Chat as these questions can (usually) be addressed quickly, and these misunderstandings don’t spiral out of control. We want you here, but we ask that you give us benefit of the doubt. If there is confusion ask, don’t accuse. – rcollyer Jul 30 '15 at 1:47
  • @rcollyer Very good points. I was just extending the benefit of the doubt the other direction as well. :-) – Mr.Wizard Jul 30 '15 at 5:37
  • 2
    @Mr.Wizard but, it is widely accepted across the entire SE network that the information in the site help is only a brief and incomplete introduction (at best), and that accepted practice is defined instead by observed community norms and associated meta discussions. A narrow and absolute interpretation of the listed rules is attractive, but that page is not a legal document and cannot support being read in that fashion (and even legal documents still need someone to define their proper interpretation). Life does not come with a rule book, much as we may wish it otherwise. And so it is here. – Oleksandr R. Jul 30 '15 at 13:27
  • @Oleksandr I don't disagree with anything in your comment. – Mr.Wizard Jul 30 '15 at 18:24
  • @rcollyer " If there is confusion ask, don’t accuse" There was no confusion and no accusation. – ChrisJJ Aug 1 '15 at 1:14
  • @Oleksandr R "Life does not come with a rule book, much as we may wish it otherwise. And so it is here." Actually you're wrong. This site does come with a rule book and often when a question of mine has been opposed, it is with a message that refers me to the rules in order to reword my question. So perhaps if you think think site shouldn't have a rule book, perhaps you ought to remove it. Meanwhile, while the rules are present, please accept that newcomers may do their best to follow them. – ChrisJJ Aug 1 '15 at 1:18
  • @ChrisJJ I'll pick nits here: claiming something as false, is an accusation. – rcollyer Aug 1 '15 at 2:15
  1. I can see the basis for your complaint as there is some distinction between the two questions, but your last comment isn't going to win you a lot of popular support.

  2. Questions do not need to be "exact duplicates" to be closed with [duplicate] mark; instead as the inserted header reads "This question already has an answer here" is a major part of the justification. If questions are related and have essentially the same answer they will be closed and linked by this process.

  3. I have just edited the https://mathematica.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic page to explicitly reference the custom close reasons and to clarify the origin of the "off topic" label that may appear. I hope you find this a reasonable resolution to the disparity that troubled you.

  • 1. Unpopular support will suffice. :) 2) "Questions do not need to be "exact duplicates" to be closed with [duplicate] mark". I'm not asking about those questions. I'm asking about questions which are closed explicitly and falsely "because it is an exact duplicate of that question" . 3) Thanks i.imgur.com/UnoeFfK.png though that's to do with a different question, not this. – ChrisJJ Jul 29 '15 at 23:35

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