2

I keep flagging a certain comment on one of my questions for elimination, and it keeps getting denied.

The comment is on Why were 2 episodes omitted from the "The Tick" DVD releases, and why was Season 3 never released to Region 1?

The comment is from DustinDavis

Similar thing happened to "The Riches" which was caused by a writer's strike. Damn good show, what a shame. – DustinDavis Apr 26 '13 at 3:44

The question refers to DVDs that have had episodes omitted from their release. DustinDavis' comment refers to "a similar thing happening to the Riches due to the writer's strike". Investigation of The Riches reveals there were no episodes omitted from any of their DVD releases at all.

Wikipedia says there were 13 episodes in the first season and 7 in the second season. Wikipedia says there were 13 episodes released on the US DVD of the first season and 7 in the US DVD release of the second season. The second season was cut short by the writers strike and left without a conclusion; Wikipedia notes the potential for a followup film to conclude the show. This has nothing to do with series being released on DVD that have had episodes omitted from their releases. The show the question refers to was not cut short at all; episodes were omitted from the DVD releases.

The comment is not relevant. There was no "similar thing".

I've flagged it for removal due to irrelevance several times, and each time it is denied removal.

History of removal requests:

100% irrelevant. Whatever this "Riches" incident he's referring to, it has nothing to do with missing episodes on DVD releases. – JoshDM Jan 13 '14 at 16:37 declined

irrelevant; as I pointed in the follow-up comment, out the poster is not referring to something that happened to both The Riches and The Tick. Whatever it is, he's confused. – JoshDM Feb 20 at 15:26 declined

has nothing to do with the question. – JoshDM 23 hours ago declined

not constructive – JoshDM Jan 2 '14 at 19:43 declined

not constructive – JoshDM Jul 29 '14 at 19:40 declined

Why is this being denied?

I have applied a new follow-up comment @DustinDavis to see if he'll remove it for irrelevance.

  • My guess is, the reviewers aren't doing their homework. Which isn't anything new, most people will look at it and go, "Hmmm, seems on-topic" and deny the request. Are you allowed to add a reason for the delete, and if so can you add a link to a source that indicates nothing was removed from "The Riches"? – Johnny Bones Mar 20 '15 at 16:04
  • 1
    You might want to have a look at chat... – Trish Ling Mar 20 '15 at 16:12
  • 1
    Flag it as "Other". State your reason and a link to the Wiki. We can't control whether each reviewer will do their due dilligence, but that might at least give them pause. Aside from that, don't sweat it. It's just a comment, it doesn't hurt your question or any potential answers at all. – Johnny Bones Mar 20 '15 at 16:13
  • I've already flagged it multiple times as Other. Updated the question with my attempts. – JoshDM Mar 20 '15 at 16:19
  • 2
    Its never come up in review for me, so I can't comment about why other people have declined it. After reading this meta-question, I flip-flopped on this one (and did briefly delete them) - but I think its more useful that they see your comment than I just delete them. Comments are after all a bit of a conversation about the question. If I delete the comment then to make sense I must also delete yours - and the person may not gain much understanding about your issue with their misunderstanding. – iandotkelly Mar 20 '15 at 18:21
  • FYI - because I deleted the comment, then undeleted it - your flag would be marked as accepted, but the comment is still there. My apologies for changing my mind on that one. If you disagree with my reasoning, do respond here, or flag me in chat. – iandotkelly Mar 20 '15 at 18:32
  • @iandotkelly - your logic makes no sense. As I have with many other areas, I planned to delete my own comment once the 100% completely irrelevant comment that has nothing to do with the question by DustinDavis was removed. You are welcome to delete both. I care not for the "credit" for asking for its removal. – JoshDM Mar 20 '15 at 19:09
  • @JoshDM - but from the point of view of the commenter - they just have a comment deleted. They have no explanation. – iandotkelly Mar 20 '15 at 19:16
  • 1
    My point is not to 'give you credit' by not deleting your comment, its to allow comments to be exactly what they are intended to be..... a mechanism to discuss the post. – iandotkelly Mar 20 '15 at 19:18
  • His comment has been there for a long time. My response "had" been there for quite a long time. I deleted my response and added a new one with the @DustinDavis tag to it. Perhaps if he's drawn to this question in meta, where he also seems to participate, maybe he'll have his explanation. I'm sure if he is so concerned, and brings it up, perhaps someone will point out to him the chat discussion about it, or again, this question. – JoshDM Mar 20 '15 at 19:19
  • @JoshDM - my bad, I thought you'd only added the comment 2 hours ago. I'll delete them. – iandotkelly Mar 20 '15 at 19:28
  • @iandotkelly - I had a comment that was there for about as long as his comment was there. Then it was suggested via chat that I try re-contact, so I deleted it and rewrote it and reposted it (so a new "contact" alert would go out). You hadn't seen the whole picture. – JoshDM Mar 20 '15 at 19:33
3

I can only speak for why I declined that flag, which have been the latest two instances of the flag being declined (separated by a month), and even that I don't remember too well.

First of all, I do very well tend to delete comment threads once they're obsolete. But I also don't tend to be totally strict about comments being "off-topic" or "not an answer", because they are, well, just comments and nothing more. I don't regard comment conversations as inherently bad if they are remotely related to the question/answer and don't stretch across multiple iterations. Flagging comments as not answering the question seems inappropriate to me. Comments and their deletion never have been seen as strict as questions/answers in the SE framework and your example is quite a grey area to me.

That being said, this comment from the other user was just calling out a superficially similar case. From its wording it seemed he was aware of the fact that the reason for your question was not a writers' strike but that it's just a "similar" incident, if you agree with him about the particular extent of that similarity or not. That's probably why it just was a harmless comment and not an actual answer. Then you expressed in which way it is not similar to your example. This seems like a reasonable conversation related to the question: "hey this related case might interest you" - "ah no, it's not really that related". I can't see a problem with this, neither does it make the impression that the commenter was "confused".

Rather than that it, honestly speaking, seems like you just had some unnecessary grudge with that comment and just responding with "no, that's too unsimilar to my example" was not enough for you. But seriously, it's just a comment pointing out a related case, however related that may actually be, it's not supposed to answer the question and just posting your related response seems absolutely enough. I don't see the necessity to rid the site of such short and totally harmless little conversations related to the question's overall topic, which might even bear some interesting insights to visitors.

I agree, though, that it's a grey area and there might as well have been a decision made in favour of deleting the comment. However, there wasn't and I'm fine with that, too.

  • The thing is, it's not related at all, whatsoever. "The Riches" comment refers to a TV series whose life-cycle was cut short due to a writer's strike, and therefore the stories ended on a cliffhanger (I've had to research this). None of the DVD releases for "The Riches" have ever been missing an episode (I've also researched this). The question the comment was posted on is exclusively regarding a TV series that has had US DVD releases that were missing episodes that were originally broadcast. The show was never cut short due to any writer's strikes or for any other reason. – JoshDM Mar 25 '15 at 17:35
  • There is no "similar thing" that happened to The Riches in any way, shape or form. – JoshDM Mar 25 '15 at 17:36
  • 1
    @JoshDM Meh, seems related enough for a friggin little comment. And you successfully debunked that supposed similarity with your comment. What else to expect? As I said, it could as well have been deleted as unnecessary chatter, but it also could not. I just don't regard comment deletion as something as strict as answer/question deletion/closure, because comments never have been seen as strict in SE. – Napoleon Wilson Mar 25 '15 at 17:36

You must log in to answer this question.

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