2

This is the answer i'm talking about.

The answer does not even remotely addresses the question.

And,in any case, when Tezz has precisely answered the question there was not any real need for adding another answer unless the same (that Sadashiva creates the trinities) has been mentioned in some other chapters of the Padma Purana.

So,needless,to say,that the answer does not answer the question.So should have been deleted by now.

Because as said by Keshav Srinivasan,one of the moderators,under comments in this post:

Not answering the question is indeed reason enough for deletion on this site. 

The moderator has shown a lot proactiveness while deleting one of my recent answers and this answer by citing "not answering the question" as reasons but the answer in question here is spared although it can be classified both as spam and as not answering the question.

9
  • 4
    It's not spam, but I agree that it doesn't answer the question at all, so I just deleted it. In any case, the reason it hasn't been deleted thus far is that I wasn't aware of its existence, since no one flagged it. Whenever you see answers that don't answer the question I encourage you to flag them. – Keshav Srinivasan Dec 5 '16 at 8:11
  • Ok fine,& its good to see that one deleted... – Rickross Dec 5 '16 at 8:14
  • 3
    @KeshavSrinivasan, if you see this query, then around 400+ answers don't match the criteria of this site, i.e. no reference cited. Why can't moderators take up the task & simply delete 1 by 1? This will clean up the site faster than users flagging it. Assume those answers to be [virtually] flagged. This was already proposed long back. – iammilind Dec 5 '16 at 8:42
  • 5
    This is not the (appropriate/proper) way of raising discussions on meta (You should flag instead). This looks like extension of you previous question on Meta. And sounds you want a same thing to be applied strictly as was happen in your case. Note that all things doesn't happen in a fixed way. It depends on conditions and situations. – Pandya Dec 5 '16 at 9:28
  • 1
    @Pandya i had already flagged before posting this Q..and supposedly its only because of that flag the answer got the attention it needed.. – Rickross Dec 5 '16 at 9:31
  • @Rickross Then mention it in your question – Pandya Dec 5 '16 at 9:33
  • 1
    @Pandya Why ?What is the need? – Rickross Dec 5 '16 at 9:34
  • 2
    @Rickross because we don't know: "since no one flagged it." – Pandya Dec 5 '16 at 9:37
  • 1
    @PandyaThe purpose of this question has been served..i'm not interested in editing it anymore..if u find that is apt then u are free to edit it urself.. – Rickross Dec 5 '16 at 9:38
2

This is an old post and problem had already been solved. So, there's no need for an answer now for this meta question. I will mention the reason how it doesn't answer the question for the records.

Question clearly asks "Where does PadmaPurana Declares SadShiva to be originator of Brahma Vishnu and Maheshwar "?, which means it is asking for reference in Padma Purana, preferably quotes from Padma Purana. Authenticity of statement "SadaShiva to be originator of Brahma Vishnu and Maheshwara" is not in scope of question. Answers should contain in which chapters of Padma Purana such statements are present.

Answer (which was deleted) doesn't contain any such statements rather than it refutes the statement ""SadaShiva is originator of Brahma Vishnu and Maheshwara". So, that post doesn't answer the question. If question was "Does the Padma Purana declare SadaShiva to be the originator of Brahma, Vishnu and Maheswara? ", then answer would be a proper answer.

Some users post answers refuting the question (maybe out of Bhakti for their Ista Devas) and in haste they don't check whether it really answers the question or not. Since it doesn't answer the question it needs to deleted (and it was deleted).


Other answer given is bit misleading and issue has been diverted to Philosophical differences. For example, this answer tries to prove Shiva is Supreme but it doesn't answer the question and it was deleted by me . We should also check whether answer really address the question not just references or sources.

So, this answer doesn't answer the question and it should be in deleted state which it remains now, unless OP edits it to make it an answer.

-2

Update: Since this is an old post, I would recommended to go through the deleted answer first, which I have edited to make it more objective.
I followed below post (low quality but not 1 liner):
Please stop flagging (instantly) questions/answers as low quality if they are one-liners

Update 2: Original answerer is inactive for more than a year. It seems that my edits which are helpful - are getting rolled back again & again. Probably a Mod doesn't want to undelete it for philosophical differences.


"Why is this answer not deleted yet?"

After re-reading the answer carefully, I am not sure, if the answer should be really deleted. The question is about:

Where does the Padma Purana declares SadaShiva to be the originator of Brahma, Vishnu and Maheswara?

The premises of the Qn implies the superiority of SadAshiva & that's already answered by Tezz. Now let's see some part of the other answer:

And the Padma Purana also states: ... Shiva replied,"Those Persons who,deluded by ignorance,describe any other deity being superior to Vishnu, The Lord of the world, are said to be Pasandis.

Which means, the answerer is probably challenging the premises of the question itself by showing apparent contradiction. Means, if "Vishnu" is the supreme then there is no question of "SadAshiva" creating him.
[Note: Personally I am not bothered, who is supreme. May be all are supreme.]

If I were a moderator, then I will let the answer remain, because it cites scriptures & relates to the question. Yes, the formatting is bad and needs improvement. May be I will downvote it & ask the user to reduce the length and remove irrelevant parts.


Since the answer is already deleted by moderator, I would generalise your question. According to our site criteria, we delete the answers which are without [proper] scripture sources. For example, the answer discussed in this meta post.

So the Qn can be: Why the answers listed in below query are not deleted yet!
SearchQuery: cite sources.

Typical reason given is: "those answers are not flagged yet". But that reason is Not substantial. Because,

  • Such excuse is presented as of all flags are always accepted! :-)
  • Flag provides help to identify the link to the problem. In above query, all the links are readily available. Why to wait for flag?

This idea was already proposed in the discussion of above linked meta post. Mods only can answer it.

"And,in any case, when Tezz has precisely answered the question there was not any real need for adding another answer"

Not so right.
In technical SO, where one plus one is two, people come up with different ideas. Then in philosophical websites, it's more important to present different POVs. If it's wrong then downvote it or comment it. Even if a question is answered very perfectly, a new person should be encouraged to answer with his/her thoughts.

For example, in below post, multiple answers are giving same contents with different POVs:
What is the duration (Timeline) of the four "Yugas"?

Or in below post, the accepted answer stands wrong, from other scripture POV. But all answers should be retained because we don't who is right & who is wrong:
What was the age of all Pandavas during the Mahabharata war?

15
  • 2
    Agree with most of the things u have said except that "In technical SO, where one plus one is two, people come up with different ideas. Then in philosophical websites, it's more important to present different POVs" while that can be valid for other questions and for philosophical questions but not for the one in hand.The question is very specific "Where in a certain Purana such and such thing is said?" So,it can't have philosophical ,speculative or unsure/vague answers...Only precise answers will be there because of the very nature of the question itself. – Rickross Dec 5 '16 at 9:13
  • *what if some other reliable scripture XYZ, nullifies Padma Purana" Even in that case the user should post his findings as a separate Q and A..If the user post his findings as an answer to that Tezz's Q will be considered off-topic only.. – Rickross Dec 5 '16 at 9:33
  • @Rickross, I have edited my answer. May be you will have change of mind with respect to your 1st comment. In any case, regarding the 2nd part, I haven't changed anything. I am also aware, that you don't really mean that people should avoid answering when a Qn is already nicely answered. But my point was to encourage general viewers to attempt to answer the Qn. Let the churning of nectar happen, even when both the sides are opposite. :-) – iammilind Dec 5 '16 at 10:33
  • @milind..No it does not answer the Q at all..I agree with the Mod this time...The Q is Where does it say? and that user is trying to show where does it say something "otherwise" may be..that is still off-topic in my view.. – Rickross Dec 5 '16 at 11:16
  • @iammilind You edit is changing intention of OP. let OP decide whether to edit it or not. – The Destroyer Oct 27 '17 at 11:58
  • @TheDestroyer I have just edited out the non relevant part of the answer. Haven't added anything extra. Since the answer was deleted as "not answer", I simply put the 1st line which is sensible. Editing answer for good of community is always recommended & I have seen you supporting that in meta. Now holding grudge against the OP based on his/her intention & reverting a good edit which i did after efforts isn't right. If you have a strong reason to revert edits then only revert. – iammilind Oct 27 '17 at 14:03
  • @iammilind You are making it an answer by removing irrelevant parts and it totally changes the intention of OP with which he posted answer. Anyone can interpret anything from an answer. In any case, it is better if OP edits it. – The Destroyer Oct 27 '17 at 14:17
  • @TheDestroyer, let's discuss first in chat room before entering into an edit war. Even if OP intention was bad (as you presume), then I have made it good to help. Do you find it wrong? Btw user is inactive since Sep-2016. – iammilind Oct 27 '17 at 14:19
  • 1
    @iammilind I''m not presuming anything here. He is just refuting views of Tezz with his answer in which way it is not related to question. If so, he is free to post a question and self answer it. But question is very clear. It is specific about "Sadashiva being originator" not refuting it. if i ask a scriptural reference for some x, and if someone answers Y is correct, then that answer can't answer the question. I will lock the post to stop edit wars. This comes under "doesn't answer" category and it is justified to remain in same state. – The Destroyer Oct 27 '17 at 14:24
  • @TheDestroyer you are presuming OP's intentions in your above comments. After my edits, In that form of answer - the post does addresses the Qn without any controversy. I dont have any agreement or disagreement with any answers. If an answer is good after edit & user inactive for long then Mods have nothing to intervene. Currently by rolling back the edits you are abusing your Mod ability. I won't argue further. – iammilind Oct 27 '17 at 14:29
  • @iammilind I'm not abusing Mod power. Downvotes on this post show disagreement with your opinion from community on your post, yet you edited the post to make it an answer.. There's no need to remove here. Even as mod i'm not concerned about Technicality of posts. If we can follow the same rule, we can even make spam posts useful for community. Most of the times we should limit editing to just grammar or something which makes post meaningful. Hope you understand. :) – The Destroyer Oct 27 '17 at 14:34
  • Please check What is the etiquette for modifying posts?. – The Destroyer Oct 27 '17 at 14:37
  • 2
    Etiquette of modifying posts change from community to community. Our site has agreed already on improvement of posts. @TheDestroyer if you count votes then the deleted answer got 3 upvotes. The present downvotes to my answer are probably based on low quality of the original answer. I tried editing it. But you are rolling back. Why are you so much interested in edits of a deleted post? I presume that your intentions are not to restore it for may be philosophical difference. If that's not the case then you wouldn't have to rollback a deleted post so many times. This is what I understand. – iammilind Oct 27 '17 at 14:38
  • 1
    @iammilind Editing posts which conflict OP's intention is not justified. You can see Sricharan's post and comment on the same issue before on meta. There's no philosophical difference here behind my action. If indeed i had philosophical differences, I would have downvoted answer on main site. As a Advaitin, i don't see difference between Shiva and Vishnu or who is Supreme. Even previously we asked Sv. to stop making "abusive" or "improper" posts to "mild posts" through editing. – The Destroyer Oct 27 '17 at 14:42
  • 1
    @iammilind If question is "Does Padma Purana declare SadaShiva to be the originator of Brahma, Vishnu and Maheswara?" instead of "Where does the Padma Purana declare SadaShiva to be the originator of Brahma, Vishnu and Maheswara?, then definitely that answer was proper with "negation". " – The Destroyer Oct 27 '17 at 14:47

You must log in to answer this question.

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