This answer is written for new users of the Skeptics - Stack Exchange (or Skeptics.SE, for short) - especially those who have just asked or answered their first question, and have been surprised by the feedback.
We hope you find Skeptics.SE enjoyable, interesting and fun… and not too daunting when you first arrive.
Skeptics.SE is ...
Actually, Oddthinking and Sklivvz explained the reasons for deletion quite well in the comments, don’t you think?
Your first sentence makes a bold claim, with no reference. Please add one. Your second sentence makes a bolder claim with no reference. […]
Thanks for explicitly declining to add references. It means I can request a mod deleted this ...
Let's note that there is a dictionary definition for this word:
not false or copied; genuine; real:
an authentic antique.
having the origin supported by unquestionable evidence; authenticated; verified:
an authentic document of the Middle Ages; an authentic work of the old master.
entitled to acceptance or belief because of agreement with known ...
We require citations for all important claims in our answers, answers that do not fulfill this requirement are deleted. Usually we give you some time before deleting so that you can add the citations, but as you explicitly wrote in your comment that you won't add any answers, there is no need to wait before deletion.
The general rule for answers is that:
Every answer should be suitable for review and voting by our community of experts in evaluating evidence. Answers which require non-trivial specialist expertise or are anecdotal in nature are not acceptable due to the nature of this community.
One of the premises of skepticism is the application of the scientific ...
Thanks for that!
Please make sure you always use 302s.
Also, please don't use these on the site, but only to share our content elsewhere. We don't actually want a dependence on an external service in order to navigate the site.
There are several problems with that answer:
It uses the same source that is questioned to answer the question. The question is skeptical about Gold's claims, using his book to prove that he is right doesn't add much.
The answer doesn't make clear which statements are directly from Gold's book and which parts you added yourself.
The post also contains ...
I haven't deleted your answer however, I might guess that the reason it was deleted is that you are only bringing to the table the opinions of someone writing a book. Why is it that the book is a valid resource and not garbage?
You rightly say the book has references, do they support the thesis you present as a summary? Checking references is clearly ...
Evan, first of all, I am atheist, so I find it difficult to comprehend how I could be viewed as Zionist, or having any respect for any particular religion... I think they are ALL stupid, childish, and frankly a detriment to mankind (but that is neither here nor there).
The answer had received several flags for displaying a graphic image that was in poor ...
I agree that just because something is on YouTube does not make it unreliable.
I wrote in chat after the answer was deleted:
@Larian: You recently deleted an answer, saying that YouTube wasn't reliable. I'm worried that might be taken the wrong way. It isn't the medium itself that was the problem in that case. It was the anecdotal nature of the evidence.
Your question starts:
My answer to a question was deleted within minutes of posting.
Under the Guidelines for Inadequately Referenced Answers it states:
If one week has passed and no-one has added references, or if the author explicitly declines to add references before then, that the moderator feels is necessary, then the moderator may add a ...
I'll elaborate, but I don't want to waste much time on this.
Can you prove [any scientific fact]?
No, we are not mathematicians. We are not a court of law.
We would routinely edit out such language. So the better title would be:
Did a plane hit Pentagon on September 11, 2001?
My point was we already have that question on the site.
You have tried to ...
With all respect, the rules here is that you need to reference your answers, your deleted answer was:
Rule of thumb is that in most (hardly all, though) cases it is not advisable to eat much of anything when you're sick. That's because your body should be focusing on fighting the disease rather than digesting grub.
That said, it is NEVER advisable to eat ...
Stack Exchange will actually periodically auto-save the last version of your answer and restore it when you re-visit the page. However, I wouldn’t rely on this mechanism. It’s mainly there as a security in case the browser crashes.
In fact, I edit all my bigger answers in a text editor. Since the formatting is done in Markdown and is quite basic anyway, I ...
I'd suggest that mods in future refrain from dealing with flags on their own posts, and leave them for a different mod to judge the merits of.
That's our typical practice - I don't know if it is formally written as a policy anywhere, but it is one of those obvious integrity issues. I just handled them. (Sorry for the delay. I've recently returned from a ...
I wouldn't bother with anything more than voting and commenting where appropriate. I'd say their contribution is overall positive. The few issues I've seen were corrected by the community. Seems to be a user that will learn and follow the guidelines, rather than choosing obstinacy.
Your answer wasn't deleted for having downvotes. Your answer was deleted because it didn't answer the question. After edits, it still appeared that you were not going to answer the question. It received flags because it wasn't answering the question ("Not an answer").
The way to dealt with mod-deleted answers is to edit and flag for reinstatement. Not an ...
The figure "410" by itself needs context.
At the time of writing 90% of questions garner an answer, and this is considered "Okay" (for a beta site). It has been an area where we have had trouble in the past keeping up with other StackExhange sites. I just looked at a couple of examples which I thought might be like Skeptics.SE: Physics.SE gets 96%. English ...
Your answer is chock-full of outrageous, unreferenced claims. You know the rules on this site. You may disagree with them, but you still have to abide by them. And even without invoking the rules you should perceive that your answer is poor in facts and rich in speculation and hand-waving.
And yet you have the gall to complain about the deletion of such a ...
Feral, great questions, and I think a comment wouldn't be able to hold them all (or I'd be making multiple comments, and I tend to lose my train of thought that way).
I am specifically asking for sponsorship as an individual. That said, I will be doing things to specifically promote Skeptics StackExchange as I mentioned in my proposal. By attending as an ...
FWIW there's a transcript here of a chat which hints at the kind of answer Sklivvz wanted:
for example take a group of programmers and split it in half, one half being denied the use of stack overflow. give them the same problems and measure KPIs
He's looking for published results available via Google Scholar, and/or experiments from an economist.
I would have deleted your answer as well if I were a moderator of the same reasons that were outlined by the others. This really is a research level question that someone could get a solid paper and maybe even a thesis out of and your answer is very hand-wavy and mildly editorialized (i.e. "Jeffs bureaucracy") in way that doesn't really add much to the ...
Trump is the object of the claim, in other words what the claim is about, and this means that the tag is appropriate.
If Trump were the subject of the claim, in other words the claimant, then the tag should not be used.
Trump said that the Earth is flat (DO NOT USE)
Is trump a reptilian? (USE)
Trump said he is a reptilian, is it true? (USE)
Compare with ...
Let's start with the focus of this site.
It isn't for subjective discussion.. It isn't for sharing political opinions.. If your answer is based around what option is better, or what social ill is most important, it doesn't belong here.
Subjective discussions and political opinions are important too. But, they aren't on-topic here. Please do have them, ...
No, they are generally not reliable enough. In fact, we routinely challenge stuff claimed in youtube videos.
Also "go watch this video" is as unacceptable as "go read this book". It is not a way to reference, it is a way of appealing to authority.
A magician speaking about their craft is not unsustainable in conjunction with more evidence, but it's not ...