31
$\begingroup$

The purpose of this thread is to help focus the attention of the community on posts that may require reopen and undeletion votes. A request should be posted as an answer below (one request per answer).

Some guidelines:

  • Please be polite, and respect the many different viewpoints in our diverse community. This goes for the person making the request as well as those commenting on it.

  • There is a reopen queue. Please wait until a post has gone through this queue, before posting here. Notice that the first edit after the question was put on-hold pushes the question into reopen review queue, if the edit was done within 5 days of closure. So does a reopen vote. (If the review has already been finished, it is shown on the timeline of the question.) In doubt, wait 24 hours after the last substantive action.

  • To inform readers of the current (and past) states of the targeted post, please add once the request resulted in some action the information Reopened or Undeleted at the start. (If it the action is undone, add this too, like Reopened, reclosed.)

  • Do not only post a request, like "request reopening of ". Instead make a case for your concern. Yet keep in mind that it can be easier to get your request handled if you try to frame in a away that takes the feedback the post received into account in a positive way rather then seeking confrontation. Also, try to improve the post before posting here.

  • In case of "small" requests, like one missing vote, it can make sense to ask in chat instead of posting here. The room CRUDE is a reasonable place for such requests. The same guidelines apply there.


Earlier versions of this thread that served as a model:

$\endgroup$

89 Answers 89

1
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, redeleted, undeleted again, reopened

Statements that look obviously false but cannot be disproved. is at $+15$, and has answers at $+7,+10,+14,+20,+21,+8$, and $+15$. Please consider voting to undelete. [In the interests of transparency, I note that the $+15$ answer is mine.]

$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I agree that the question is highly upvoted and has highly upvoted answers. That does not make it an appropriate question for MSE. With regard to what is on-topic, it isn't a problem or puzzle, and I see no clear indication that there is a particular topic that needs to be clarified. With respect to what not to ask, the question seems designed to engender discussion, not to seek explanation. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Sep 27 '18 at 16:35
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ For the benefit of the people who cannot see deleted questions, I'll add that this MO question is mentioned in comments: The most outrageous (or ridiculous) conjectures in mathematics. (Even if this one does not get undeleted, the linked MO post might be interesting for people who would consider Statements that look obviously false but cannot be disproved interesting.) $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Sep 28 '18 at 8:42
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @XanderHenderson Just curious, what would you then consider as on-topic for the soft-question and big-list tags? $\endgroup$ – dxiv Oct 4 '18 at 5:51
  • 10
    $\begingroup$ Surely we have better things to do that relitigate this post over and over again, and remove the collective efforts of 16 people. I see no harm from the existence of this post, except for the ruffled feathers of people who are inclined to overmoderation. $\endgroup$ – user296602 Oct 4 '18 at 22:13
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ In my opinion, if some want content and others do not then it should stay. The veto should be over removal rather than the converse. I will never understand why it's so important to wreck somebody else's party. $\endgroup$ – user334732 Dec 1 '18 at 18:22
1
$\begingroup$

Reopened


There have been at least five questions asking how to prove instances of the general proposition $\log_m(m + 1) > \log_n(n + 1)$ for integers $n > m > 1$:

1. How to know if $\log_78 > \log_89$ without using a calculator? (3 May 2012), with an exemplary answer by user22805.

2. Logarithm inequality problem: $\log_2 3 > \log_3 4$ (27 Sep 2016).

3. Compare $\log_34 $ and $\log_45.$ (24 Mar 2017).

4. How to compare logarithms $\log_4 5$ and $\log_5 6$? (25 Sep 2018).

5. Comparing $\log_5 6$ and $\log_6 7$ (9 Oct 2018).

There have been at least three other questions asking to prove inequalities of the form $\log_a{b} > \log_c{d}$ for integers $b > a > 1$ and $d > c > 1$:

6. Which is bigger among (i) $\log_2 3$ and $\log _3 5$ (ii) $\log_2 3$ and $\log _3 11$. (9 Jun 2013).

7. How can I compare $\log_2 3$ and $\log_3 5$ without using a calculator (5 Sep 2017).

8. Comparing $\log_2 3$ to $\log_3 5$ (6 Mar 2018).

There has also been at least one more complex question in the same broad category:

9.Prove $\log_{\frac{1}{4}} \frac{8}{7}> \log_{\frac{1}{5}} \frac{5}{4}$ (20 Sep 2012).

Most recently, the following question was posted, but it was quickly closed as a duplicate (I confess to being one of those who voted to close it):

10. Comparing logarithms with different bases (23 Oct 2018).

The close message for question 10 reads:

This question already has an answer here: How to compare logarithms $\log_4 5$ and $\log_5 6$? 6 answers

But the only method used to answer a previous question (1-9) that can also be applied to the present question (10) is to find positive integers $m, n$ such that $b^n > a^m$ and $d^n < c^m$ (as in Eudoxus's theory of proportion), so that $\log_ab > \tfrac{m}{n} > \log_cd$.

In a comment (which has now been incorporated into the text of the question), the questioner showed that he was aware of this method, and had already used it to answer his own question. He continues:

However, that method doesn't work for every example, and I wonder if there's a easier way to solve this?

Strictly speaking, any logarithm comparison question could be answered in this way. But that is not always very practical, because one one has to search for suitable values of $m$ and $n$, which may be quite large. Some previous answers state or imply the general rule that $\log_a{b} > \log_c{d}$ if $\tfrac{b}{a} > \tfrac{d}{c}$ and $a < b$, but that rule does not apply in this case. It is interesting to ask if some other rule might be applied, eliminating the need for a possibly haphazard search for $m, n$. Failing that, ad hoc solutions to the present problem are also of interest.

Question 10 meets MSE's selection criteria, so it ought to be reopened.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The question lacks contract in any event. Most importantly: why were the specific constamts in the problems chosen? If the problem is about arbitrary constants, it should be rewritten to say so. If the OP was already aware of a method to solve the problem, that context should also be in the post. Overall the post does.noy seem to demonstrate much effort to write a good post. $\endgroup$ – Carl Mummert Oct 28 '18 at 16:19
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Carl On that basis, Diophantus would have a hard time posting a question here! Where, in MSE's rules, does it say that every question must be framed in the most general terms possible? What is wrong with asking a question about particular numbers? Especially as no-one has (yet) posted a general answer or a general question covering this particular case. Finally, even if it were granted (purely for the sake of argument) that an experienced user ought to have asked a more elaborate question, shouldn't a new user be cut some slack? $\endgroup$ – Calum Gilhooley Oct 28 '18 at 16:28
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Carl Also, it was closed as duplicate, and my point is that it is not a duplicate. The close message is a false statement, and the close decision should be reversed. (Of course, anyone can also vote to close it for another reason, and no such person need feel obliged to vote for reopening.) $\endgroup$ – Calum Gilhooley Oct 28 '18 at 16:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ !Calum: there's no problem posting a question with specific numbers - but it is up to the OP to include adequate context, and the reason for choosing seemingly arbitrary numbers is (in my opinion) part of that context. If this was asked person to person at a department tea, we would expect the asker to say something about the numbers involved. The OP should be encouraged to improve the problem, they have plenty of "slack" to do so. $\endgroup$ – Carl Mummert Oct 28 '18 at 21:19
  • $\begingroup$ I think my guilty conscience over this has now been assuaged. :) $\endgroup$ – Calum Gilhooley Oct 29 '18 at 0:36
1
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, closed, deleted.

I nominate https://math.stackexchange.com/q/2991071/290189 for undeletion because OP has self-deleted his post shortly after receiving an answer. That's rude to the answerer.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I agree that the question should not have been deleted by the original asker, and would have voted to undelete had I seen this before the question was undeleted. That being said, it is a pretty low quality question, and would like to now nominate it for closure and (if it is not improved) eventual deletion. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Nov 12 '18 at 23:26
  • $\begingroup$ @XanderHenderson Agreed and updated the status of my answer. $\endgroup$ – GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會 Nov 13 '18 at 1:27
1
$\begingroup$

Undeleted

I nominate Optimization problem for routes for undeletion because the question asker self-deleted his question shortly after receiving an answer.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Is that the right link? The question asker is named Jacob, which I take to be a male name, and the question was undeleted at the same time as this answer was posted. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Feb 6 at 21:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson Nice catch! I was typing on 📱, and I made this careless mistakes. I'm going to update this status of my answer. $\endgroup$ – GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會 Feb 6 at 21:08
1
$\begingroup$

Reopened

Please consider reopening Is there an injective homomorphism from $S_4$ to $GL(2,C)$ because the question asker has shown efforts in solving the problem, and it has a score of 4 with an accepted answer of score 3 from a 25k user.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Answers should not be used to judge whether a question should be reopened. But in this case, the asker did include sufficient context, so that's irrelevant. $\endgroup$ – user21820 Mar 25 at 9:44
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ "Answers should not be used to judge whether a question should be reopened." That's your opinion, @user – it is not a rule, or even a consensus. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Mar 25 at 11:51
  • $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson: It is your comment that is an opinion; it's not even a consensus. Both this and this clearly demonstrate a consensus that "bad questions beget bad questions" and "closed questions can and should be deleted even if the have good but standard answers; only truly great answers should rather not be deleted". $\endgroup$ – user21820 Mar 25 at 12:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @user21820 Thanks for your comment. I'll be aware of that next time. $\endgroup$ – GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會 Mar 25 at 16:39
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @user, your quote refers to deletions, not closure/reopening; what's more, the part that says "only truly great answers should rather not be deleted" plainly contradicts your assertions that "answers should not be used to judge...." $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Mar 25 at 21:51
  • $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson: Firstly, if a bad question ought to be deleted, then obviously it should not be reopened. Secondly, it would be real silly to assume that everything I say is to be taken completely rigidly with no room for exceptions; from my very first comment I meant that as a rule of thumb answers should not be used to judge... $\endgroup$ – user21820 Mar 26 at 5:43
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @user, I'm not sure how I am to tell which things you write are to be taken completely rigidly, and which allow room for exceptions. Maybe we could work out some signal, so in the future I'll be able to tell. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Mar 26 at 8:51
  • $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson: Usually, I try to be precise, using words like "typically" or "almost always" but, you know, that that is very tiring to do in every single statement. How about you just assume that there may be rare exceptions unmentioned unless I use the word "absolutely"? I don't think anyone is 100% precise all the time anyway, so that works for interpreting others' comments too. $\endgroup$ – user21820 Mar 26 at 8:59
1
$\begingroup$

Reopened

Please reopen Am I have right answer about dual problem? since OP has responded to the comment and used MathJax to type out the math. In the revised version, OP has attempted to construct the dual program of the primal program, so it's OK for reopening.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Reopened

I nominate A question of arithmetic regarding erection cost of a structure. for reopening since the question asker has shown his/her work in solving the problem.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I agree, but think they should also be encouraged either to edit what they said in comnents into the question, or to give someone else permission to do so. $\endgroup$ – timtfj Feb 5 at 12:20
1
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, put on hold, deleted

Please undelete https://math.stackexchange.com/q/3209899/290189 since OP self-deleted her own post after receiving an answer. This is an abuse of the system.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I undeleted it. Please try to use correct terminology. Undelete and reopen are not the same. $\endgroup$ – quid May 2 at 7:33
  • $\begingroup$ @quid Thanks for your undeletion and reminder. I'll be aware of that next time. $\endgroup$ – GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會 May 2 at 11:49
  • $\begingroup$ Question is currently on hold. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson May 3 at 3:06
  • $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson Thanks for notification. Status updated. $\endgroup$ – GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會 May 3 at 6:52
1
$\begingroup$

Closed, deleted, undeleted, deleted, undeleted, deleted, undeleted, deleted, undeleted, reopened.

Unfortunately, the question I asked Why is the zero polynomial the only one to have infinite roots? was put on hold as off-topic first, then closed, and then deleted. I edited it much for it to be reopened, but it wasn't reopened. I apologise if it was off- topic to you, but I edited it. If it being off topic yet, kindly suggest improvement or undelete it please.


Note (quid): I reopened this now. The mass-editing and double posting OP is gone, the question is simple and a bit confused, but arguably not overly contrived and understandable, and answered. It's not impossible somebody else might find this useful at some point. Let's move on.

$\endgroup$
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ Have you finally made up your mind between "Wikipedia" and "wikipedia"? $\endgroup$ – Did Feb 3 at 21:37
0
$\begingroup$

Reopened


Please consider reopening Indian Mathematicians. The question was closed as off-topic, apparently because of the existence of the History of Science and Mathematics site.

As I pointed out in a comment, first, questions about history of mathematics are on-topic here. The tag has almost two thousand questions and a decent amount of recent activity.

Second, the quality of many interactions at the HSM site is sadly rather poor (I was very enthusiastic about it when it started, so this poor quality quite bothers me), and it may end up being a disservice to send this question there.

(I would actually love to see the quality at that site to raise uniformly, and hope it happens relatively soon. But that is another matter.)

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I think at least the formulation of the question should be clarified a bit before it is reopened. The first answerer already misunderstood it. $\endgroup$ – quid Aug 30 '18 at 21:11
  • $\begingroup$ Fair enough. I'll do a slight edit. $\endgroup$ – Andrés E. Caicedo Aug 30 '18 at 21:16
  • $\begingroup$ I had decided to do an edit myself. Sorry for the confusion. I'll check back in one or two hours. If it's still closed then I'll give the final vote(s). This allows also for further editing. $\endgroup$ – quid Aug 30 '18 at 21:19
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ No problem. I gave the edit a second pass. (And thank you.) $\endgroup$ – Andrés E. Caicedo Aug 30 '18 at 21:22
0
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, deleted, undeleted, deleted, undeleted, reopened, closed, locked, unlocked, deleted, undeleted, locked (for historical significance).

I think this question should be reopened. Thank you!

The original poster looked for the possibility to use the substitution $t=\tan\frac{x}{2}$ and he got a number of solutions.

By the way, the first comment of Lord Shark the Unknown is nothing. At the least, it gives a very complicated solution which the topic starter tried to apply but without success.

$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Quote from the question: "I tried tangent half-angle substitution but it became too complicated." First comment on main: "Try half-angle substitution, but with a little more determination. – Lord Shark the Unknown Aug 9 at 9:54" Answer by the OP: [DNE]. $\endgroup$ – Did Sep 8 '18 at 22:17
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ "By the way, the first comment of Lord Shark the Unknown it's nothing" Pfff... $\endgroup$ – Did Sep 8 '18 at 22:44
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ And now there's a rollback war. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Oct 1 '18 at 12:35
  • 12
    $\begingroup$ This question feels like a joke that everyone gets but me. (1) Why is this question particularly bad? The OP said they tried the obvious thing but to no avail. Presumably they made a mistake, but so what? That doesn't invalidate the question. (2) Why is there such a fierce edit/close/delete war? The question is 2 months old - let it rest!!! $\endgroup$ – user1729 Oct 12 '18 at 17:11
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Rollback to Revision 9 by Alex Francisco, rollback to revision 10 by Michael Rozenberg, rollback to 9 by Alex, back to 12 by Michael, to 9 by Alex, to 14 by Michael, to 9 by Alex, to 16 by Michael. Crazy! $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Oct 15 '18 at 22:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Please, Michael, please, please, please stop editing the tags on that question. Enough already! $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Nov 6 '18 at 11:08
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This is just sorta embarrassing to watch at this point. And it's already back to 2 undelete votes, so I expect another full cycle in the next day. $\endgroup$ – user296602 Nov 27 '18 at 18:28
0
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, reopened

I humbly request undeletion and reopening of this question, if you see fit to do so, because

a) reasons for closing should be derived from the question itself and not from speculation about the skills of the asker.

b) the given reasons for closing are incorrect - while the question sails close to an open problem, it asks a different but related question - it asks if the open problem (which relates to a series of polynomials) can be extended to its limit point.

c) the time from entering the reopen queue to deletion was less than two hours, denying any who might have been interested in its reopening the opportunity to declare the same.

d) moreover, I think others will find the question and any prospective answers of interest and value.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The time from entering the reopen queue to deletion may have been short, but the question had been on hold for five days already. As for the close reasons, I'll note that 2 of the close voters did not use "not math". I think that personnally I would have probably voted to close as unclear what you're asking, because on a first reading I honestly had no idea what you were talking about. $\endgroup$ – Arnaud D. Dec 1 '18 at 12:43
  • $\begingroup$ @ArnaudD. Yes, but the reopen request followed an edit which increased focus on the actual question and removed the motivation for it, when I believe the question's motivation was almost certainly the cause for the down votes and closure in the first place, rather than the question itself which stands alone. $\endgroup$ – user334732 Dec 1 '18 at 12:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ By the way, I think the most recent edit on your question (post-deletion) already makes the question more interesting. It only consists of adding a Wikipedia link, but that link already explains some of the context better than your question (for example, I hadn't realized that you were talking about polynomial bijections $\mathbb{N}^k \to\mathbb{N}$, but maybe that's just me). $\endgroup$ – Arnaud D. Dec 1 '18 at 12:57
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ For what it's worth, the reopen review was completed before the deletion, as one can see here. $\endgroup$ – Arnaud D. Dec 1 '18 at 13:15
  • $\begingroup$ @ArnaudD. good point, although predominantly the same users. Is there a better review link that shows timings etc.? I thought I saw one before but can never re-find it. $\endgroup$ – user334732 Dec 1 '18 at 13:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ There's the timeline, but I don't know if it is as detailed as you'd want. (By the way, there's another question about how to find it). $\endgroup$ – Arnaud D. Dec 1 '18 at 13:44
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Setting aside all other issues, there are some obvious (and, I think, easily correctible) errors in your question's key equation, stating the F-P conjecture: the right hand side has no $y$ in it, and the index of summation $n$ appears nowhere in the expression being summed. I'm pretty sure you want the summation to go from $k=1$ to $n$, not $n=1$ to $k$, with $f_n(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ on the left hand side, not $f_k(y)$. $\endgroup$ – Barry Cipra Dec 1 '18 at 15:28
  • $\begingroup$ @BarryCipra thank-you. I think I intended $y$ to be the set $\{x_1,x_2,\ldots x_k\}$ and yes, I agree I appear to have exchanged an $n$ with a $k$ but alas no edits are allowed on a deleted post so I can't correct it :( $\endgroup$ – user334732 Dec 1 '18 at 18:17
  • $\begingroup$ @RobertFrost That's surprising. In any case, I've just done the correction. $\endgroup$ – Arnaud D. Dec 1 '18 at 18:57
  • $\begingroup$ @ArnaudD. Thanks and you even got the $f_n$ I thought might get missed. $\endgroup$ – user334732 Dec 1 '18 at 19:00
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ What do you mean by "timings"? The time of the review is there exactly. As usual, hover over the time stamp to get a resolution to the second. $\endgroup$ – quid Dec 1 '18 at 23:44
  • $\begingroup$ @quid thank-you. That probably covers it although I can only see a deleted post on desktop so I'll have to check later $\endgroup$ – user334732 Dec 2 '18 at 4:07
  • $\begingroup$ @ArnaudD. Thank-you for the edit. A reopen vote would be greatly appreciated (only if you think it appropriate). Else the deleters will reverse the undeleters! $\endgroup$ – user334732 Dec 3 '18 at 10:39
0
$\begingroup$

Can this answer (on permutation groups) be undeleted:

https://math.stackexchange.com/a/3197094/10513

It was deleted for not providing an answer to the question. However, it gives a decent hint which leads to a solution. The hint is essentially "consider odd vs. even numbers". This was made formal in the accepted answer, which used mod 2.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I think it's a bit of a stretch from that hint to the accepted answer. The hint ought to be a comment (in my opinion). $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Apr 29 at 12:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson Hints are a grey area. But I don't think deleting them because they are "a bit of a stretch" is the right thing to do. $\endgroup$ – user1729 Apr 29 at 12:55
  • $\begingroup$ It would have been better, had a moderator converted the "answer" to a comment. You could try flagging the question for moderator attention, and making that suggestion. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Apr 29 at 12:59
  • $\begingroup$ I flagged it beforehand, and was told to post my request here (admittedly i didn't suggest making it into a comment) $\endgroup$ – user1729 Apr 29 at 13:19
  • $\begingroup$ OK, now you know what to do. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Apr 29 at 13:22
0
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, Merged and then deleted

Please reopen https://math.stackexchange.com/q/3208119/290189 since OP has self-deleted his/her own post after getting an answer. The community should have been given enough time to vote.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You can't reopen a question that isn't closed, GNU. Now it has been closed, as a duplicate, but I don't see how $x^y+y^x=(xy)^2-19$ is a duplicate of $x^y-y^x=xy^2-19$. So, I'm flagging for moderator attention. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Apr 30 at 13:47
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson By the moment I posted this answer, I did voted to close this question as missing context. I did notice the difference between the two. Thanks for reminding me. $\endgroup$ – GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會 Apr 30 at 13:52
  • $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson a problem is that the original version of the question was incorrect. A third party edited it to this version, while main OP had re-asked a different version. $\endgroup$ – quid Apr 30 at 15:32
  • $\begingroup$ I deleted it after the merge now. This did not work out ideally, but it's near impossible to fix. If somebody wants that version of the question on the site I recommend to ask it anew. $\endgroup$ – quid May 2 at 18:17
0
$\begingroup$

Deleted, undeleted, deleted, undeleted, reopened

Please reopen Calculating the summation$\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{H_{n+1}}{n(n+1)}$ because it's not an elementary question and OP has tried checking the proposition using Wolfram Alpha.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In my opinion it's very poor style to reignite this after month without mentioning any of the earlier activity in which you even were involved. Thus, I locked the post for now. $\endgroup$ – quid Apr 30 at 11:43
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I'm puzzled. A "content dispute" notice was lifted in March 2018. The content has not been altered since then. So it seems strange to lock it for "content dispute" now, @quid. [I guess I should mention that I was involved in earlier activity.] $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Apr 30 at 13:56
  • $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson Are your really puzzled or are you just searching an argument? First, the content of the post was also not changed between the first locking and the first unlocking. Second, the lock was not lifted in the sense of somebody lifting it, it simply expired. It was not reinstated as there seemed no need back then about a year ago. Then half a year ago, there was one more round of undelete-delete but it fizzled out quickly. Now somebody wants to go back to this again, indeed without any further changes, simply picking up the del-undel again. To prevent this, I locked it. $\endgroup$ – quid Apr 30 at 14:36
  • $\begingroup$ Third, it might be relevant to note that the lock was "lifted" while the post was deleted. Thus, if consistency is the concern of course I should lock it again now. I could also have it become undeleted and then personally delete it again. Last time around some where keen on locks being used. So, there you go. Of course that's not fine for you now either, presumably because it does not cater to your personal preferences. $\endgroup$ – quid Apr 30 at 14:43
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ To sum up, I locked it to prevent the delete-undelete cycle being restarted. By now the question was deleted four times. Plus it is an odd situation, in that it first got siginificantly improved by a third party only for this then being undone If anything should happen likely a completely new version should be posted. This would be a reasonable thing to do if preserving content is the actual goal. Of course if playing un-del games should be the goal... thus locked. @GerryMyerson $\endgroup$ – quid Apr 30 at 14:48
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @quid, when I write that I am puzzled, please do me the courtesy of accepting that I really am puzzled. I'm puzzled not so much by the locking but by the phrase, "Content dispute", when there was no change in content. Had the locking notice said "Prevent delete/undelete cycle" I don't know that I would have made any comment. Does a moderator have the option of inserting custom-made locking notices, or is "Content dispute" the only phrase available? Also, I always assumed that when a moderator locked a question, the question stayed locked until a moderator decided it was time to unlock it.... $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Apr 30 at 22:46
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ ....I didn't know that locks expired of their own accord after a week. I've been here almost a decade, and I'm still learning how the place works. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Apr 30 at 22:47
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson the list of reasons is fixed (we can ask for additions in principle but not spontaneously) "content dispute" is the one commonly used in this case, others are "off topic comments", "contest question", "cw answer", "historical significance". We can lock for an hour, for a day, for a week, or permanently. Usually one tries to avoid permanent locks. $\endgroup$ – quid Apr 30 at 23:58
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Probably it's worth mentioning that there already is one answer in this thread about the same question. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak May 15 at 7:34
  • $\begingroup$ @quid, thanks for the explanation about length of locks. It's not possible, is it, for non-moderators to see what length a moderator has chosen when that moderator locks a question? $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson May 20 at 4:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson indeed I think that's not possible. $\endgroup$ – quid May 20 at 8:39
0
$\begingroup$

Please unmark the duplicate of this question. I have clearly said that my question has nothing to do with duplicate one. I am asking totally different thing and the duplicate question's answer does not help me at all. It is also an unique question which follows m previous question.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I don't believe the relationship between the Questions is quite so simple as one "has nothing to do with" the other. Both involve intersections between two spherical caps, although you might not have visualized your problem in this way. There might still be a further problem in stating the area in terms of how you parameterized the spherical region, I grant, but it would be worth understanding the solution of the proposed duplicate to try restating the area given there in your terms. $\endgroup$ – hardmath Jun 6 at 17:11
-1
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, redeleted, re-undeleted, redeleted

Please consider undeleting the question: The asymptotic behavior of $n\ln n -n$

This question has four well written answers by experienced users. One answer has six upvotes and contains useful links to similar problems.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Well, I'd consider something in the spirit of the comment as the best answer there. Anyway given the complete lack of context it's hard to know which type of answer would be useful, whence the voluminous list. Also all standard likely on the site in similar form tens if not hundreds of times. At least one answerer made the effort to link it to related posts. $\endgroup$ – quid Jun 6 at 22:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Redeleted (6/17/19) by a same group of users. One initiated three times the delete votes and one voted three times to delete this post. $\endgroup$ – Jack yesterday
  • $\begingroup$ Probably I should have refrained of posting an answer there - however at the time when I posted there were some answers already and they seemed (to me) more complicated than needed. I have also included links to some other questions - you can see that similar questions are on the site (and they have similar answers). I will also say that when posting the answer I was fully aware that the question is likely to be closed/deleted. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak yesterday
-1
$\begingroup$

Deleted, undeleted, redeleted

What OP wrote under the problem statement clearly show his/her thoughts:

How can I do this if I don't know how $a_n$ is defined? I can use the given limit to get the range of $a_n$ in terms of $L$, but I lack the direction to complete the proof.

This is not a zero effort question. Please consider undeleting this post:

Given positive sequence $a_n$ where $\lim _{n\to \infty} a_n = L, L >0$, prove that $\lim_{n \to \infty} 1/a_n = 1/L$

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Did you check if it's a duplicate? It's a very standard question. $\endgroup$ – quid Apr 26 at 14:32
  • $\begingroup$ @quid, it probably is a duplicate (although I had no luck finding an example), but then shouldn't it be closed as a duplicate rather than as off-topic? $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Apr 27 at 0:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson a question might be eligible for closure for multiple reasons. It's maybe not a PSQ in it's purest form, but it's still not a good question. I'd say if somebody wants to restore a question it's on them to make sure no reason applies not just the one that was chosen. Further, it would have been on the asker to make some good faith effort to find a dupe before answering (and then complaining that their answer was removed). If a dupe of this question is not findable what does this tell about the level of organization in those tags. The priorities are not good. $\endgroup$ – quid Apr 27 at 7:12
  • $\begingroup$ @quid, I see Jack complaining that the question was deleted, not that his/her answer was removed. As to whether Jack made a good faith effort to find a dupe, I have no way to know for sure. The tags seem reasonable, and I wouldn't expect a duplicate to use all three of them, and just searching among questions with, say, the tag "limits" seems pretty hopeless, considering how many questions have that tag. All I can really go by is the difficulty I had in finding a duplicate, using approach0. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Apr 27 at 7:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson here math.stackexchange.com/questions/1171733/… it was pretty trivial to find. $\endgroup$ – quid Apr 27 at 7:22
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Well, in any case they complain. We can replace the "that" by "after". On the rest, again the onus is on them. They ought to explain that there is no dupe (supposedly). Further, it is generally considered as good form to mention if one has answered oneself. Especially if it is the only answer. @GerryMyerson $\endgroup$ – quid Apr 27 at 7:26
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson not sure about that. I might have had the luck to use the better strategy for that example, searching for words via Google on this site not for formulas for example 'convergence of inverse of convergent sequence' works well. $\endgroup$ – quid Apr 27 at 7:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson (and quid) I did try to find a duplicate and I indeed noticed that limit of reciprocal of a sequence away from zero should be a rather standard exercise in calculus/analysis and should have been asked before. However, I think "context" counts as an integral part of a post, and that is why we insist on "contexts", don't we? [cont.] $\endgroup$ – Jack Apr 27 at 13:14
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ [cont.] I am not able to find any same/similar confusion ("How can I do this if I don't know how $a_n$ is defined?") in any known post, for instance in the linked post in one of quid's previous comments and thus I do not think this post should be considered as an "absolute" duplicate that one should delete it. $\endgroup$ – Jack Apr 27 at 13:14
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I agree with Jack's comments above, I don't think this post should be closed if a duplicate is not found where the same confusion is addressed. To the best of my knowledge, this confusion has not been addressed before, so this post should be undeleted and reopened. $\endgroup$ – Brahadeesh Apr 28 at 5:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson Basically a duplicate, except it doesn't require $a_n$ to be a positive sequence, was asked fairly recently at Sequence Limit Reciprocal Law Proof, where I provided an accepted answer. As for finding it, note it originally only used the tag "elementary-number-theory", but I changed it later to "limits", so searching for it initially might not have turned it up. However, I can't see the original deleted question content, but the page it brings up shows $2$ other somewhat related ... $\endgroup$ – John Omielan May 2 at 8:08
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The status of the question had not changed at all. What is the justification for this edit? $\endgroup$ – quid May 31 at 16:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ On the comments above, which I only see know, due to lack of a notification, that's not a particular confusion. Any generic proof will necessarily do just fine to address this. I mean the proof you gave is completely generic. What do you think you did to address whatever specific confusion? $\endgroup$ – quid May 31 at 17:04
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I agree with Brahadeesh's comment and I've undeleted the question. $\endgroup$ – GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會 Jun 14 at 9:21
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @quid The quoted question in Jack's last comment answers your first question; point (3) in Jack's answer addresses your second one. $\endgroup$ – GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會 Jun 16 at 3:17
-2
$\begingroup$

I nominate https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/29570/290189 to be undeleted because this meta question contains moderator's feedback to deal with serial downvotes.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What information is in that post that is not in the FAQ? Also as it was auto-delered it'd be redeleted. $\endgroup$ – quid Feb 9 at 12:46
  • $\begingroup$ @quid That post provides real examples of questions being serial downvoted. $\endgroup$ – GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會 Feb 9 at 12:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ How is that useful? $\endgroup$ – quid Feb 9 at 13:14
-2
$\begingroup$

Deleted, undeleted, redeleted and merged with another question

I request the undeletion of this question (on denesting $\sqrt{a-b\sqrt{c}}\,)$

Reason: I asked this question, and it turned out to be a duplicate. However, this doesn't deserve deletion as this question contains a crucial formula that is a very useful one. It is very useful to me, and it is sad for me to see that the community is not able to access it anymore. Please undelete this question.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The answers there are dupes of the answers in the linked dupe thread (and many others - this is a FAQ). I see no reason to further such rampant duplication. $\endgroup$ – Bill Dubuque Mar 1 at 1:03
  • $\begingroup$ @BillDubuque there is a useful formula. Perhaps if you can transfer the answer to the other question?? I find it really useful. $\endgroup$ – Max0815 Mar 1 at 1:04
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ That well-known formula is already in Frank's answer in the dupe (and many, many other answers here). Moreover, he derives if instead of pulling it out of a hat as in the answer in your thread. $\endgroup$ – Bill Dubuque Mar 1 at 1:06
  • $\begingroup$ @BillDubuque how is it derived? even if so, the other answer on my question has a basic method that is not included in the other question. $\endgroup$ – Max0815 Mar 1 at 1:08
  • $\begingroup$ Please read Frank's linked answer (and the others too). That's the point of linking your question to the dupe target. $\endgroup$ – Bill Dubuque Mar 1 at 1:09
  • $\begingroup$ @BillDubuque oh, right. $\endgroup$ – Max0815 Mar 1 at 1:11
  • $\begingroup$ I don't understand why this question was deleted. It seems to me that the only reason is that it is a duplicate. I do not believe that this is a reason to delete duplicated (and this was discussed recently here). $\endgroup$ – user1729 Mar 7 at 13:10
-2
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, and deleted again

Please undelete https://math.stackexchange.com/q/3110919/290189 because this question has got a score of 2 after OP included his/her own thoughts on the problem. This algebraic geometry question might add value to the main site.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Selfdeleted without answer. No need to undelete. $\endgroup$ – quid Feb 25 at 9:16
-2
$\begingroup$

I would like to see this question undeleted and mark as duplicate but keep it alive on the network.

Also, I object to the deletion since although the questions are looking for the same thing, I must mention that they are not word by word duplicates and the context also seems a bit different. Also, the answers are not duplicates (except one which coincidentally was answered by the respective OPs of both questions).

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ This question was deleted by a moderator, which means that only a moderator can undelete it. As such, there is pretty much nothing that anyone here can do for you. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Apr 5 at 17:50
  • $\begingroup$ @XanderHenderson I posted this on meta. Someone asked me to post here (just to be shot with 3 odd downvotes here ) $\endgroup$ – tatan Apr 5 at 18:54
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Votes on meta do not mean the same thing that they mean on the main site. A downvote means "I do not agree with this statement." I would interpret the downvotes here as an indication that the community does not want to reopen / undelete your question. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Apr 5 at 20:50
-2
$\begingroup$

Undeleted

+6 question with thousands of views and with two, +18 answers. Created in 2016, deleted last week.

Found by the SEDE query Suspicious question deletions from the last week.

$\endgroup$
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Standard solve-my-problem-without-me post, and nothing spectacular about the answers. I oppose undeletion. $\endgroup$ – user296602 Jun 3 at 10:29
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @T.Bongers To me, it is absolutely non-trivial, if the sum of a singular and a nonsingular matrix is always nonsingular. The example in the accepted answer was catartic to me. Your attitude would be probably acceptable on the MO, but that is another site. Here sub-phd, maybe even pre-grad level questions are allowed, and you should view the quality and usefulness of a question on the level for which it is written, and not on yours. $\endgroup$ – peterh Jun 3 at 10:38
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ I have no idea at what level the question was written (and neither do you), because the asker never bothered to say anything at all beyond the statement of the problem. This is not a do-my-homework site, regardless of how little quality control some users want. $\endgroup$ – user296602 Jun 3 at 10:44
  • $\begingroup$ @T.Bongers Maybe the user 1) is enough educated to be able to think about, is the sum singular and nonsingular matrix always nonsingular 2) But he is not enough well educated to know its answer? Is it enough narrow to know, who is he? Hm? Or should he have attached his CV to his question as well? $\endgroup$ – peterh Jun 3 at 10:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This isn't a case for some hyperbolic slippery slope argument, and you know that. If the question had context, it could be appropriate for the site. $\endgroup$ – user296602 Jun 3 at 10:51
  • $\begingroup$ @T.Bongers The required "context" what you would want so strongly, is clearly visible in the post. And you know that. This is a typical case of the dark direction what you made from this once so friendly and open site. $\endgroup$ – peterh Jun 3 at 10:54
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I disagree with T.Bongers's comment: "Standard solve-my-problem-without-me post..." In what "standard", if exists at all, for a site "that is for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields"? I disagree with the deletion in a way that I would strongly disagree with (possible in the future) deletion of this and this "standard" exercises (created 2016 and 2018) T.Bongers answered (nicely!). $\endgroup$ – Jack Jun 3 at 11:55
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @Jack Thanks for bringing those posts to my attention; I agree with your judgement of the first one (but not the second), and have started a close vote. I would delete my answer if I could, but it was accepted. Of course, it's clear that your comment is a disingenuous off-topic attempt to poison the well by calling me a hypocrite. So it goes. $\endgroup$ – user296602 Jun 3 at 12:15
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @T.Bongers: Thank you for your message. "it's clear that your comment is a disingenuous off-topic attempt to poison the well by calling me a hypocrite." Please don't put any word into my mouth that I did not say at all. I am sorry that you think it in that way. I do mean what I said and I do NOT mean to be sarcastic at all. Since we are talking about "deletion", I don't think my previous comment is off-topic. And yes, if you or others were going to vote to delete the linked posts that you answered, I would disagree and vote to undelete. $\endgroup$ – Jack Jun 3 at 12:48
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ I'd like to remind everyone to keep it civil. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jun 3 at 15:17
-2
$\begingroup$

Please consider undeleting this post: What is the formula of this angle?

There is a well written and well-received answer to this interesting question.

$\endgroup$
-3
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, closed, re-deleted (not by question-asker this time)

Please reopen https://math.stackexchange.com/q/3129981/290189 because the question asker has self-deleted his/her own post after getting an answer. The communnity has not got enough time to judge its value.

$\endgroup$
-3
$\begingroup$

Please undelete https://math.stackexchange.com/q/2192864/290189 because OP has self-deleted his question one minute after receiving an answer from me. This is an abuse of the system.

$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ OP shouldn't have deleted it, but what a miserable excuse for a question! With all due respect, I don't think you should have answered it, not without first getting OP to bring it up to standards. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson May 24 at 2:47
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ The question was deleted one minute after receiving an answer, but this request was posted more than two years later. If the asker deleted the question to cover up the fact that they got help, then they already succeeded. I don't really see a reason to undelete this, because it would just get closed and deleted again. $\endgroup$ – user296602 May 24 at 6:42
-3
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, deleted, undeleted, reopened

Minimize a+b+c+d given LCM(a,b,c,d)=1000 [closed]

$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ The relevant rule is this: "Before voting to delete, please check whether there are any good answers; [...] We don't like to lose great answers!" By voting to delete the question, you violated this rule. $\endgroup$ – peterh Jun 1 at 17:00
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I disagree with the way Xander disagreed: "I see no reason to undelete this question in it current form". I disagree with the deletion as I would disagree with (potentially possible) close/deletion of this question Xander answered: math.stackexchange.com/q/2414862 $\endgroup$ – Jack Jun 1 at 17:16
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @Jack I have no problem with the closure of the question to which you linked. I do find your targeted citing of that question interesting, and would note that when I answered that question, I had been active on MSE for a grand total of 2 months, and had not yet learned the norms. If I saw that question newly posted today, I would likely very quickly vote to close. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Jun 1 at 17:28
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Normally when posting here, one is expected to put in an explanation for why this question should be undeleted, reopened, etc. The boldface line on the top is meant to indicate the status changes after posting, and not be a part of the request. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jun 1 at 17:28
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @XanderHenderson: "I have no problem with the closure of the question to which you linked". Sorry I do. I would disagree with closing the question you answered nicely I linked and in particular I would strongly disagree with deletion of that linked post. I do not think there was/is a "norm" for deletion so far for the site except the general rule peterh quoted in a comment. $\endgroup$ – Jack Jun 1 at 17:30
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @quid I was impressed on them. It is subjective. But their score is objective. $\endgroup$ – peterh Jun 1 at 17:45
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ For moderator who keen on different opinions/ideas from his/her own by MSE users: "Please don't abuse your power to stir discussion up when users disagree with your (possibly not so wise) idea of deletion and 'and respect the many different viewpoints in our diverse community' ". $\endgroup$ – Jack Jun 1 at 17:51
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @peterh: I don't see how that situation on server fault is "similar". And again, I'd ask you to avoid using inflammatory language. It helps no one, except perhaps you, to release pent up anger. It's inappropriate, and deteriorates the remote option that anyone is going to have a discussion. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jun 1 at 17:54
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Jack so how about you respect others views or at least the rules of the site. $\endgroup$ – quid Jun 1 at 17:54
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ If you think that this is somehow similar, you should spend a bit more time trying to learn the underlying software, the system of privileges, and what is the job of the moderators. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jun 1 at 17:57
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @peterh the discussion is on-going since years. Just this morning I spent an hour with an other user to analyze data about this. Users (as opposed to moderators) are severely rated limited as concerns deletions. That you are miffed because three of your posts were deleted, does not mean that there is some problem. Yes, some users are against deletions, but again that's true since years. Maybe focus more on following rules regarding questions quality, then the issue regarding deletions will be of much less relevance. Don't cherry pick rules. $\endgroup$ – quid Jun 1 at 18:15
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @quid It is your decision, what will be a mod issue. I need to notice, too, this sequence of events: 1) one of my old posts is deleted, in my opinion, falsely. 2) I complain on the meta. 3) The post gets an undelete and a reopen. 4) 2 of my old posts are deleted. | I think, the nicest possible interpretation is that my meta post attracted some attention to my old main site posts. The lesser nice, but maybe more likely interpretation is that these were revenge deletions for my complains. $\endgroup$ – peterh Jun 1 at 18:44
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @peterh the short questions are not blindly deleted but they are reviewed for potential deletion. Well your question has 0 score [correction: -2 now], which leaves use were exactly. Five users thought they want the question closed. Maybe there view also should count for something. Of course they did not all bother to dv in addition, but there opinion seems to be clear. Kindly stop the cherry picking and the quoting of half-sentences. However you want to frame it, the thread is not good. Also the high score is a high quality is a gross over simplification, as everybody knows. $\endgroup$ – quid Jun 1 at 20:04
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @peterh people evaluate your post and find it lacking. Of course you can pretend it's for other motives, but then way back then it was already closed. That some users upvoted the answer does not change that. It's well-known that often almost obvious stuff is especially well received because there are enough voters that can easily make sense of it. Again the answer is not good in the way I believe good is intended there. It's a correct yet completely standard answer to simple and contrived question. The site is better without that thread. $\endgroup$ – quid Jun 1 at 21:53
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I have edited the post (revisions, the version after my edit) in order to add at least some context. I have not case my undelete vote - I'll wait first to hear whether you are satisfied with the edit and leave some time for you if you want to edit it further. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Jun 3 at 5:16
-4
$\begingroup$

I think we need to open the following Mike Lyons's answer: The smallest value of $x^2 + 5y^2 + 8z^2$ such that $yz+zx+xy=-1$

I think it's a beautiful and right answer. We need to redact it only.

It was my mistake to delete this answer.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Note that the question has since been deleted. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Oct 9 '18 at 22:27
-7
$\begingroup$

Ratio problem for aptitude exam in India [closed]

None of the questions was eligible for a deletion, and also their closure reason is highly problematic.

$\endgroup$
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ If the question was not eligible for deletion then how, pray tell, was it deleted? The question itself is nothing more than a problem statement, with only minimal context given (it is from some Indian aptitude exam). The question is unmotivated, and there is zero evidence of any effort having been made to answer the question. I see no reason to undelete. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Jun 1 at 16:39
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ As an addendum, I find your demanding tone to be unpleasant. It is your opinion that this question, and the one you linked to above, should be undeleted. It is your opinion that they should be reopened. It is your opinion that no valid deletion reason exists. Clearly, others disagree with you. Demanding that others take some action is unreasonable. Make a request, make your case, then wait for the community to decide. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Jun 1 at 16:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I have no demanding tone. I see a content deletion rampage, targeting particularly me, possibly as a revenge action for my recent meta post, where I complained another rule violating content destruction. What you can see now, is that I try to do something about it. If it is "demanding tone" for you, let it be so, but it is not a reason to me to do anything differently. $\endgroup$ – peterh Jun 1 at 17:03
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @peterh Your phrasing "Needs undelete, possibly reopen, no valid deletion reason exists" is very aggressive and demanding, and stating that no valid deletion reason exists is rather dismissive of the people who disagree with you. A lot of the site functions well because of consensus, not dismissive attempts at solo decision-making. (-1) from me, because I think this is a bad question to keep on the site. $\endgroup$ – user296602 Jun 1 at 18:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @T.Bongers Please check the end of the other discussion. I not only complained, I also analyzed SEDE data. I invested this effort because 3 of my old posts were deleted within days, what made me suspect that it was not pure coincidence. In the current discussions, I've seen only little arguments that the posts were really bad, however the relevant rules explicitly forbid the deletion of questions with good answers. $\endgroup$ – peterh Jun 1 at 18:33
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @T.Bongers From here: "Before voting to delete, please check whether there are any good answers; [...] We don't like to lose great answers!" $\endgroup$ – peterh Jun 1 at 18:34
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @peterh It says: "Closed questions that are of no lasting value whatsoever should be flagged and deleted." Thus, explain the lasting value of the post. Same for the other question. As far as I can tell there is no lasting value. It might be nice that you helped that other users even though they did not follow the rules regarding question quality, but lasting value, there isn't any. $\endgroup$ – quid Jun 1 at 18:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @peterh At least eight different experienced voters here think that the question is worth closure or deletion. Perhaps you could spend some time thinking about why that is, instead of just rules-lawyering to get the answer back. $\endgroup$ – user296602 Jun 2 at 3:41
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @T.Bongers My problem with your this comment, and with your attitude, that after the removal of the argument from authority part, nothing remains. Only a bunch of revenge votes. $\endgroup$ – peterh Jun 2 at 3:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @peterh By posting a request here, the onus is on you to convince the community that the content is worth preserving. All you've done is cite a guideline about having good answers, but I don't think you've made any effort to explain that there is a good answer that's worth preserving. This is a completely routine do-my-homework post with a completely routine solution, and quite a few community members (three delete voters + several commenters here) don't think it's worth preserving. It's easier to cry persecution than to make a case for your answer. $\endgroup$ – user296602 Jun 2 at 5:10
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @T.Bongers It is interesting! I worked a lot on the answer. Only that a problem is not interesting you, is not a reason to click delete. Actually, doing that is a power misuse. There should be clear rules, what makes a question deletable, none of them was mentioned. $\endgroup$ – peterh Jun 2 at 5:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @GNUSupporter8964民主女神地下教會 This is why the m\$ should have been destroyed long before the win95, they should have been destroyed already, as their dos3.1 was intentionally changed to become incoaptible with the drdos floppies ($\approx$ 1990). And this is why a MathSE, where the so-named "rep-farming" is limitless close&destructed, will only result a small, hostile crap, where only some disillusioned mathematicians can get their revenge on all the good-standing newbies wanting only to learn math. Do you remember USENET and IRC? That is the future of the StackExchange, continuing this direction. $\endgroup$ – peterh Jun 14 at 10:35
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @GNUSupporter8964民主女神地下教會 No, you are not satisfied by the current system. You think 10k+ "knights" should massively delete upvoted posts, without prior discussion, theoretically to "avoid rep farming", but in practice to cement their "power" and make the 10k+ an "exclusive club". It is a serious, and very evil change of the current system. $\endgroup$ – peterh Jun 14 at 11:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @GNUSupporter8964民主女神地下教會 I've developed this SEDE query to monitor the suspicious deletion activities. Since I've started to fight for the best deleted content, they became a little bit lesser hostile. This is why you don't see deleted, upvoted questions with 3 or 4 upvoted answers in the /tools now. On the previous week, they existed (btw, although I don't have 10k+ here, I still have various options to recover the content of most deleted posts). $\endgroup$ – peterh Jun 14 at 11:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @GNUSupporter8964民主女神地下教會 Btw, my these whole current activities were initiated by the following sequence of events: 1) some of my posts were closed and deleted on crap reasons. I remained silent that time. 2) yet another of my old posts were deleted. I initiated a discussion on the meta. 3) Two another of my old posts were deleted. It was clearly a revenge action from the 10k+ side. | Deleting posts by revenge votes is clearly one of the most serious power misuses, and should be punished harshly. However, the mods looked elsewhere, and said "no proof". --> this was the point as I started $\endgroup$ – peterh Jun 14 at 11:30

You must log in to answer this question.

protected by Community Oct 1 '18 at 14:49

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

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