I have previously flagged a comment and the flag has been declined. I am perfectly happy for the flag to have been declined but I would like to know which comment it is so that I can possibly learn from it.  Is it possible somewhere in my profile to view this? If not, should it be possible?
Note: This is not the same as , which is about the moderator tool. I am talking about the flag history page that is accessible through the user profile at .  I tend to have a pretty good hit rate for flags, well above 90% helpful on several sites. I also semi-regularly review the flag history page, both to see the status of any outstanding flags as well as see how flags I raised have been handled. Particularly, whenever a flag of mine is declined, I look over the post I raised the flag against with this new information in mind, to try to determine if I should change my flagging behavior in some way to better match the specific site's scope.  However, comment flags are difficult in this regard. Most often, there is only a binary status: helpful or declined. Helpful comment flags nearly always lead to the comment being deleted, so that obviously could present a bit of a problem, but that's not really relevant because a helpful flag means you should just keep doing what you've been doing. Declined comment flags, on the other hand, usually mean the comment is kept. It's the declined comment flags that I want to learn more about. But there's no way to!  All the flag says is which post it was on, how I flagged a comment, that I was the one to raise the flag (which frankly is rather useless information when you are already looking at your own flags summary), when the flag was raised and whether it's pending, helpful or declined. In a very few cases the moderator handling the flag may leave a helpful return comment.  This can get even more confusing if I raise multiple flags in quick succession against comments on the same question including any answers to it, because they basically all get bundled together.  Even in the case of a declined flag where the comment remains, there is no way to find your way back to the specific comment you flagged! Thus it is very difficult to recognize the error of your ways. Because comment flags (with few exceptions) are handled by diamond moderators only, the lack of feedback about which comment's flag was declined means it's easy to keep wasting the moderators' time without even intending to do so.  Hence my feature request: add a link to the specific comment that the specific flag was raised against, ideally only if that comment remains.
A topological space $X$ is simply connected if it is pathwise connected and each closed path $u : I = [0,1] \to X$ is path homotopic to the constant path at $x_0 = u(0) = u(1)$. Recall that  A closed path $u$ is one with $u(0) = u(1)$. A closed path will also be called a loop and we write $\mathcal L'(X)$ for the set of all loops in $X$. If we want to be more precise, we say $u$ is a loop based at $x_0 \in X$ provided $x_0 = u(0) = u(1)$. By  $\mathcal L'(X,x_0)$ we denote the set of all loops in $X$ which are based at $x_0$. Also note that each constant path is a loop.  Two paths  $u, v : I \to X$ with the same initial point $x_0 = u(0) = v(0)$ and the same terminal point $x_1 = u(1) = v(1)$ are path homotopic, $u \simeq_p v$, if there exists a  homotopy $H : I \times I \to X$ such that $H(t,0) = u(t)$ and $H(t,1) = v(t)$ for all $t$ and $H(0,s) = x_0, H(1,s) = x_1$ for all $s$ (such a homotopy $H$ is stationary on the boundary $\partial I = \{0,1\}$; it is called a path homotopy). It is well-known that $\simeq_p$  is an equivalence relation on the set $\mathcal P(X)$ of all paths in $X$. Clearly $\simeq_p$ restricts to an equivalence relation on $\mathcal L'(X)$ and to an equivalence relation on each $\mathcal L'(X,x_0)$.  The set of equivalence classes $\mathcal L'(X,x_0)/\simeq_p$ is nothing else than the fundamental group $\pi_1(X,x_0)$ with base point $x_0$.   Question: Find a list, as complete as possible, of properties characterizing topological spaces which are simply connected. Each of these properties can then be taken as an alternative definition of simply connected. Note that many questions in this forum deal with aspects of simple connectedness. The answer to the present question will hopefully cover most of them. When I include a  \usepackage{forest} all colored text title, section headings disappears with IEEE Access journal template How can I tackle this problem? How can I make command aliases in Windows' Command Prompt like I would with bash?  I found out about doskey in , so I can do something like:  doskey ls=dir /b   ...and now the command ls acts a little more like ls on Unix.  (I type ls so often in cmd, it isn't even funny.)  But how do I get this to stick between sessions?  It goes away the next time I open cmd.exe.  (Is there something like .bash_profile?) Can words like "what" be the subject of a sentence? In a question like "Who hears a noise?",  is the subject of the sentence who?  I can think of a few tests for subjects like: "the subject is the phrase that inverts with the auxiliary to form a question". But this is a question and there is no auxiliary. We could say that's because it's a subject, but that would be just to presuppose that it's a subject in the first place.  I can think of tests like: "the form of the verb will agree with the number of the subject", but on the other hand who does not seem to have  fixed grammatical number, and it sometimes seems like who might actually be agreeing with noun phrases later in the sentence:   Who are the most prolific writers of our age? Who is the most prolific writer of our age?   There are also tests like "the subject is usually the first noun phrase in the sentence". But of course if we have a question like:   Who have you bitten?   ... you, not who seems to be the subject. The first noun phrase test is not very good.  I also know that some theories of grammar say that there is a gap in wh- questions that the wh- word is extracted from. So can this gap for instance be the real object of a question? If so, is [See community wiki post in the linked to question]  How can we show whether who is really the subject of my original example question? And how about other wh- words like what? Can they (also) function as subjects? When to use self over $this? In PHP 5, what is the difference between using self and $this?  When is each appropriate? How to log commands within a "sudo su -"? If I:   [user@notebook ~] sudo echo 123456uu 123456uu [user@notebook ~]    Then I can see that in the logs:  [root@notebook /var/log] grep 123456uu * auth.log:Jan  9 17:01:51 notebook sudo: user : TTY=pts/3 ; PWD=/home/user ; USER=root ; COMMAND=/bin/echo 123456uu [root@notebook /var/log]    but if I:   [user@notebook ~] sudo su - [root@notebook ~] echo 1234567zz 1234567zz [root@notebook ~]    I cannot see it in the logs:   [root@notebook /var/log] grep 1234567zz * [root@notebook /var/log] echo $? 1 [root@notebook /var/log]    My question: How can I turn the logging on for the commands within the "sudo su -"?  OS is an Ubuntu 12.04 but the question is in general.   UPDATE#1:   [user@notebook ~] sudo su - [sudo] password for user:  [root@notebook ~] echo zizizi zizizi [root@notebook ~] cd /var/log [root@notebook /var/log] grep -iIR 'zizizi' * [root@notebook /var/log] grep 'COMMAND=/bin/su -' * auth.log:Jan 10 15:42:42 notebook sudo: user : TTY=pts/1 ; PWD=/home/user ; USER=root ; COMMAND=/bin/su - [root@notebook /var/log] NewForm.aspx disappeared What is the cause of this sudden drop in CV queue size? At Sat, 30 Nov 2013 14:51:01 GMT, there was a sudden drop in the close votes review queue size from 98932 to 98314. This is about 600 questions over the course of one minute.  It doesn't seem like a routine cleanup script. If it was, this is a very odd time for it to run. Also, the drop occurred over the span of a minute, so it's highly unlikely there was simply increased review activity. So, I ask: What was its cause?         (yes please don't shoot me I know my freehand circle is blue) (it's actually a dark teal look again) (the source for this script I  (slightly modified), found through  post)  Raw data:  Epoch time  CV Size 1385822821  98932 1385822881  98932 1385822941  98932 1385823001  98932 *** 1385823061  98932 *** 1385823121  98314     [author's note: the difference between iterations is 60 seconds] 1385823181  98314 1385823241  98314 1385823301  98314 1385823361  98314 What kind of beings are shown by the Marauder's Map? The map definitely shows people (humans) inside the castle But I remember reading Harry watching Peeves bouncing around in the trophy room and Peeves is not human And I don't remember if I had exactly read it or not, but  says that it shows the ghosts as well So what kind or creatures or beings come under the map's radar? Any living creature? Or humanoids? Or creatures with a significant size or intelligence? Would it show the house elves in the kitchen, centaurs in the forests and the merpeople in the lake as well? What about the giant squid and the thestrals or unicorns? Would it have shown the troll from the Philosopher's stone if they had the map then? What about Quirell/Voldemort? Would he have shown up on the map? And the basilisk from the chamber of secrets (the book)? May be the chamber itself was unplottable but if the map could show the basilisk he would have been visible when he was slithering around in the pipes. How to find the sum of the sequence $\frac{1}{1+1^2+1^4} +\frac{2}{1+2^2+2^4} +\frac{3}{1+3^2+3^4}+.....$ Problem :   How to find the sum of the sequence $\frac{1}{1+1^2+1^4} +\frac{2}{1+2^2+2^4} +\frac{3}{1+3^2+3^4}+.....$  I am unable to find out how to proceed in this problem.. this is a problem of arithmetic progression... Please suggest how to proceed...Thanks.. is it true if $f,\overline f$ are both analytic in a domain $\Omega$ then $f$ is constant? I am not able to  find out what property of holomorphic map I need to apply. please help.Thank you.  $f(z)=u(x,y)+iv(x,y)$, $\bar{f}(z)=u(x,y)-iv(x,y)$ I have a directory containing a large number of files. I want to delete all files except for file.txt . How do I do this?  There are too many files to remove the unwanted ones individually and their names are too diverse to use * to remove them all except this one file.  Someone suggested using   rm !(file.txt)   But it doesn't work. It returns:  Badly placed ()'s    My OS is Scientific Linux 6.  Any ideas? Show that $\langle 2,x \rangle$ is not a principal ideal in $\mathbb Z [x]$ Can't boot without Flash Drive plugged in I had Ubuntu 12.04 Beta installed on my computer. When 12.04 was finally released, I made a bootable USB Flash Drive using Startup Disk Creator.  Then I decided to check if this drive works properly and to reinstall the system on my desktop. I must add, my desktop behaves a bit strange when it comes to bootable USB's, it recognizes them as HDD.  In BIOS I changed priority of boot so USB Flash Drive (recognized as HDD) was first. Successfully booted, I installed Ubuntu. Everything worked fine, but...  Now I cannot boot from my real HDD. Every time I want to boot, I put the USB Flash Drive into my computer, boot, safely remove it and everything works.  What do I need to do to repair boot? How does one actually show from associativity that one can drop parentheses? I've always heard this reasoning, and it makes obvious sense, but how do you actually show it for some arbitrary product? Would it be something like this?  $$(a(b(cd)))e=((ab)(cd))e=(((ab)c)d)e=abcde?$$  Do you just say that the grouping of the parentheses now corresponds to just multiplying straight through? Thanks. Can "but also" be split in "not only ... but also"? I think I generally agree with the statement  When using not only . . . but also in a sentence, parallelism should be the goal. It means that the words following both parts of this correlative conjunction (i.e., not only and but also) should belong to the same parts of speech.   However, the Cambridge dictionary has an example that is not 100% parallel in my eyes, as &quot;but also&quot; is split:  Not only did she forget my birthday, but she also didn’t even apologise for forgetting it.   What I would expect, with maximum parallelism, is  Not only did she forget my birthday, but also she didn’t even apologise for forgetting it.  Is my expectation wrong? Is my formulation acceptable? Show that $S + T$ and $aT$ are linear Let  $S:  V \to W$ and $T: V \to W$ be linear transformations. Given $a$ in $\mathbb{R}$, define functions $(S+T): V \to W$ and $(aT): V \to W$ by $(S+T)(v)=S(v) + T(v)$ and $(aT)(v)= aT(v)$ for all $v$ in $V$. Show that $S+T$ and $aT$ are linear transformations. Should “two weeks vacation” be written “two weeks’ vacation” with a possessive apostrophe? I’ve always understood that the phrase two weeks usually turns into two weeks’ when used as a modifier as in   I’m giving my two weeks’ notice.  I get two weeks’ vacation. (“two weeks’ holiday” for Brits)   with an apostrophe on the word weeks’, indicating that the vacation “belongs” to the weeks.   One way to explain this is the phrase “two weeks of vacation” being contracted to “two weeks’ vacation” – the vacation is “of” the weeks; that is, it is possessed by them.  But I’ve seen a lot of people omit the apostrophe in casual writing, and thinking about it, it seems plausible that the noun vacation would be plainly modified by the adjectival phrase two weeks.  But on the other hand, shouldn’t adjectival phrases be hypenated, namely two-weeks vacation?  Yet that seems wrong, too: the hyphenate should be singular, two-week vacation (like two-tone shoes) because .   touches on this (and references a good ) but doesn’t explain why the plural must be possessive in this case.   suggests that two weeks might be adverbial rather than adjectival, and thus resists being used attributively. But that still doesn’t quite explain this particular muddle of pluralization, possession, and attribution.  Given all this, why should “two weeks vacation” be written “two weeks’ vacation” with a possessive apostrophe? Find the cardinality of the quotient of $\mathbb R$ in respect to R R is an equivalence relation defined as $xRy \Leftrightarrow a - b$ is an integer.  What is the cardinality of the quotient of $\mathbb R$ in respect to R? How would you prove it?  I thought about a bijection between $[0,1)$ to the quotient of $\mathbb R$ in respect to R, but can't figure out to prove it formally. Do you capitalize both parts of a hyphenated word in a title?  "My Ex-Wife Hates Me"  or  "My Ex-wife Hates Me"