William Elliot wrote: >quasi wrote: >> >> >> >> I meant _your_ source, where _you_ got the problem, not >> >> the actual source. >> > >> >Email, if makes any difference for this group >> >> Fine, and in that case you could have introduced the problem >> by saying something like ... >> >> In a private email, I was asked the following question ... >> >> ... question ... >> >> Of course you don't actually _have_ to reveal your source, >> but by doing so, at least you dispel the false impression >> that the problem is of your own creation. > >With that finally acceptable answer, did quo learn anything >new that I hadn't already told you? > >> On the other hand, if someone (such as myself) asks you for >> the nature of your source, it don't see why you would choose >> to withhold that information. > >Why do you block your email address while others such as I, >don't?
I prefer to remain anonymous.
But I try to attribute problems and solutions to their source, to the extent that I'm aware of the source.
Thus, if I ask about an exercise from a text, I would quote or paraphrase the problem, and identify the author, title, edition, and page number.
If I get a problem from a competition, I would indicate the competition name, year, and problem number (or as much of that information as I know).
If I am relaying a problem from another user in another forum, I would identify the forum and username of the person in that forum who posed the problem.
If I am discussing an unsolved problem then, provided I'm aware that it's unsolved, I would indicate that.
If it's my own question, I don't need to identify the source since I regard that as the default assumption. Of course, it will often turn out that such a question is actually a known question, and that's fine, but if I know such a source in advance, I think it's only fair (both to the reader and to the source) that I attribute the problem to that source.
Now I'm not saying that everyone has to follow those guidelines but in your case, there have been quite a few situations where, in my opinion, omitting any hint of attribution was deceptive, making it look like the problem was one that you'd thought up.
>My response was appropriate to the quality of your unacademic >asking copied here, for your convenience, below.
From firstname.lastname@example.org Thu Dec 27 02:47:23 2012
>>>...> I suspect that the above question is not actually yours. >>>...> >>>...> If that's the case, what is the actual source? >>>...> >>>...> Is it from a poster in another forum? If so, why do you >>>...> omit mention of the poster and the forum? >>>...> >>>...> Is it from a book or math contest? >>>...> >>>...> Why do you repeatedly post questions that are not your >>>...> own without giving credit to the source?
I stand by the above.
I would have taken it back if it turned out the problem was your own (but as I suspected, it wasn't).