37
votes
$\begingroup$

The purpose of this thread is to help focus the attention of the community on posts that may require exceptional handling. This includes requests for reopen and undeletion votes. A request should be posted as an answer below.

Please do not use this thread to engage in debates on contentious matters (e.g. reasons for closure). That should be done in a separate linked thread. The goal is to keep this meta thread free of tension, so that everyone feels comfortable posting here. Please be polite, and respect the many different viewpoints in our diverse community.

To inform readers of the current (and past) states of the targeted post, please append tags such [REOPENED,RECLOSED] or [UNDELETED] at the start of the answer.

Beware that "short" requests such as "request reopening of <link>" may be automatically converted to comments by the SE software, so you may need to write more (e.g. why you think that the question should be reopened or undeleted).

$\endgroup$

marked as duplicate by Joel Reyes Noche, user7530, apnorton, Isaac, Najib Idrissi Jan 2 '15 at 9:22

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

locked by Jyrki Lahtonen Jan 26 '15 at 8:27

This question exists because it has historical significance, but it is not considered a good, on-topic question for this site so please do not use it as evidence that you can ask similar questions here. This question and its answers are frozen and cannot be changed. See the help center for guidance on writing a good question.

Read more about locked posts here.

  • $\begingroup$ For reopen requests that are run-of-the-mill (e.g. aren't meant to debate reasons for closure), do you think it would make sense to have a generic reopen-request thread, so that we don't end up with hundreds or thousands of questions on such. Then each request would simply be an answer in the reopen thread, and it being bumped would get the same exposure as a new question. Thoughts? Unless I hear any objections I will create such a thread. $\endgroup$ – Bill Dubuque Oct 24 '12 at 17:11
  • $\begingroup$ @Bill: Yes. This crossed my mind after posting this. I agree that it would be a good idea. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Oct 24 '12 at 17:37
  • $\begingroup$ I didn't expect that you would edit this specific question into the general question (I was writing another). But since it is done, we may as well go with it. $\endgroup$ – Bill Dubuque Oct 24 '12 at 18:28
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Bill: I saw no reason to wait with that idea. There was no actual discussion in this thread anyway. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Oct 24 '12 at 18:34
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Gerry: The solution would be to add a few words, I suppose. For example why it should be reopened. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Nov 9 '12 at 12:16
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Asaf, I opted for cursing the darkness rather than lighting a candle. Anyway, the question has been reopened. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Nov 9 '12 at 21:54
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ @Gerry: Darkness is just the light's way of proving the empty set exists. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Nov 9 '12 at 21:55
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Willie: I think that we should delete old reopening requests and perhaps have one post/additional thread for indexing them. I should also think that any request older than $n$ days for some reasonable $n$ should be deleted. If something has not been reopened and the initial votes expired... well, it makes sense to conclude that there aren't that many people interested in reopening. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Nov 30 '12 at 9:49
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @Willie It's probably useful to have some nontrivial history remain so that folks $\rm < 10K$ can gain some idea about what types of questions do get reopened, and what types don't. By quickly scanning the requests it might help to convey some idea of the community consensus on marginal topics. To keep the unopened requests at the top of the active sort, they could easily be bumped if there is still interest. $\endgroup$ – Bill Dubuque Dec 1 '12 at 1:44
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @Belgi: This is why I prefer to browse Meta with answers sorted by activity. $\endgroup$ – Rahul Jan 5 '13 at 21:38
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @Belgi Sorting by activity solves the problem. I just bumped the only active discussion to the top with an edit. There are two requests dated by November 2012, which I guess are no longer ongoing conversations (but anyone so inclined can bump them; it's a CW). $\endgroup$ – user53153 Jan 5 '13 at 22:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks for the workaround, I still think theres no reasons for this to log all reopen request that were/will be made $\endgroup$ – Belgi Jan 5 '13 at 22:10
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Per the (short) discussion in this deleted meta post, I have edited this thread to support requests for votes to undelete as well as votes to reopen. $\endgroup$ – Alexander Gruber Jul 13 '14 at 14:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The question got protected again; I'd assume, but cannot check, since it fulfills criteria for autoprotection The simplest way out would be to restart a question of this form. IMO this would be desirable regardless the protection issue. $\endgroup$ – quid Oct 17 '14 at 13:58
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @quid: Yes, yes, I see that protection triggering every time I remove it. But I gave it some more thought, and for now it seems harmless after all. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Oct 17 '14 at 14:06

213 Answers 213

1
vote
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

This question was originally posted in a language other than English and so was closed for being "unclear". It has been translated, and so should now be re-opened.

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

I can’t for the life of me see what’s unclear about this question; André Nicolas, Andres Caicedo, and I have all addressed parts of it in the comments, and my comment would have been part of an answer had the question been open.

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

This question has been put on hold for being off-topic, with the following explanation: "Homework questions must seek to understand the concepts being taught, not just demand a solution." The OP has now followed up with three comments, showing in my opinion sufficient effort for the question to be reopened.

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

The OP of this question has responded to calls for extra information. They give the impression of being generally stuck -- understandable, due to being new to linear programming.


Edit: Shameless bump to rack up the last reopen vote.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Currently 4 votes to reopen. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Sep 26 '13 at 9:46
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED] Thank you.

The OP of this question has responded to calls for context, and is plainly stuck. They would like a hint.

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED] Thanks.

OP of this question has given a nice bit of context that will allow an unambiguous interpretation of the question, and hence good answers.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ The question asks for "the" derivative, but of what and with respect to what are not specified. The question is still not clear to me. (Evidently, the question is clear enough to OP, who claims in the comments to have solved it.) $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Oct 1 '13 at 9:26
  • $\begingroup$ It seems clear to me: OP has $\mathbf x(t)$, and wants $\mathbf x'(t)$. $\endgroup$ – Lord_Farin Oct 1 '13 at 9:39
  • $\begingroup$ OK, you got my vote. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Oct 1 '13 at 12:17
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED] Thanks.

OP of this question is in need of an answer (possibly a hint) that follows up on their work, which they added in response to my comment.

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

This question was recently marked as a duplicate of this earlier question. In my opinion, this was a poor decision. True, the solution to the question posed in the first link is given in the second link, but its accompanied by no proof, not even an explanation; and furthermore, the second link explicitly instructs the reader to disregard the question that the asker in the first link is actually interested in, so no proof or explanation will ever come.

I think the [duplicate] marking on the first link should be removed.

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

This question, closed as unclear, is now, after the OP’s response to a question, completely clear. I’ve incorporated that response into the body of the question.

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

I would like to see this question reopened. It is asking for the definition of something, and the OP has responded to a request for more clarification of where the definition cropped up. Therefore I see no reason for this question to remain closed.

(Although, in general I find it extremely bad form to close a question asking "what is the definition of X?". When such questions are closed it is often because those voting to close have never come across the term before, which is not one of the valid close reasons.)

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ In general I agree with not closing question about "What is X". But in this case, it's easily conceivable that multiple definitions could be given -- whence my close vote. With the reference added, it should be fine. $\endgroup$ – Lord_Farin Oct 24 '13 at 10:03
  • $\begingroup$ @Lord_Farin My point is that it is easily conceivable that multiple definitions could be given. But until someone comes along who actually knows something and says "multiple definitions could be given" then the question should not be closed. $\endgroup$ – user1729 Oct 24 '13 at 10:59
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

I would like to request that this post be re-opened. (It is at present well on its way.) It was originally closed for missing context/details, as the OP had not shown any effort or shared any thoughts on the problem. However, the OP has now added an attempt at the problem (which is very nearly correct), so the question should be re-opened.

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED] Thanks!

Please consider reopening Present a function with specific feature, about whether $f'(a)>0$ implies that $f$ is increasing.

People objected to the lack of context in the question, but my impression is that this is precisely the point of the question, that there is confusion about the concept itself, and some of the answers have indeed tried to address that.

I think the answers may be useful not just to the OP but others, and keeping the question open may be closer to the spirit of the site (This is indeed a generous reading of the situation, but I find it justified by the answers.)

(See also here for a similar discussion in meta at MO.)

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED] Thanks.

This question was closed as "unclear what you're asking". At the time of closing, it had gone through multiple edit rounds, and had 4 answers.

In other words, it was perfectly clear to some what was being asked. It shouldn't have been closed in the first place.

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

natural representation was put on hold as unclear. The author has clarified the question.

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

The author of this question has added their thoughts on the problem as requested. It was originally closed with the "missing context" reason.

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

This question was put on hold as unclear, since the term throdd and the abbreviation PBAC were not explained. I’ve added the definition of throdd from an earlier question by the same person and expanded the abbreviation, which I’ve encountered before. (It’s particular but arbitrarily chosen.)

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED] then [RECLOSED]. Current status: [DELETED]

I believe that this question should be re-opened. It was closed as being "unclear what your asking", but this has now been rectified.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The question is still a problem statement only, with no context, so even if it has been clarified it is still out of line with our expectations for questions. It seems bureaucratic to me to vote to reopen a question that still has a clear rationale for closing, when only one of several valid reasons for closing has been addressed. $\endgroup$ – Carl Mummert Mar 11 '14 at 18:54
  • $\begingroup$ @Carl Correction: it is "out of line with some users expectations". I see you cast the first vote to reclose it. Not very nice considering the above request. $\endgroup$ – Bill Dubuque Mar 17 '14 at 3:50
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @CarlMummert I think this is a bit petty. As questions go it isn't your usual off-the-shelf and out-of-the-book calculus question. The group theory tag is relatively responsible, and for a question like this it is unlikely that a full solution as opposed to a hint would be posted. $\endgroup$ – user1729 Mar 17 '14 at 9:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @user1729: I am not sure that the current version of the question, after your edit, is what the original asker was asking math.stackexchange.com/posts/707140/revisions . For example, all mention of Ito's theorem is gone. I believe it should be up to the asker to clarify what they want to know, rather than for other users to interpret what we think the asker wants to know. The asker has not edited the question since it was put on hold. $\endgroup$ – Carl Mummert Mar 17 '14 at 11:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Bill Dubuque: I posted that comment long before the question was re-opened; there was no response here until after the question was reopened and re-closed (including when the post here was edited). We all have to work within the framework of the site and the willingness of others to discuss things. $\endgroup$ – Carl Mummert Mar 17 '14 at 11:39
  • $\begingroup$ @CarlMummert I hadn't noticed the omission of Ito's theorem from the edit - on the one hand it is perhaps not the question the OP had in mind, but on the other no other possible question either makes sense or has an answer...Most likely, Derek Holt's comment was sufficient and they won't return (why would they?). $\endgroup$ – user1729 Mar 17 '14 at 12:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @user1729: if, as you suggest, the question the OP had in mind does not make sense or have an answer, I think it should be up to them to clarify it. If you or I had wanted to ask our own question, after all, we could have done it ourselves. If the asker won't return (which does seem plausible here), they are not going to accept any new answers in any case. To me, the absence of the OP is the main reason to let the question stay closed. In this case, though, I do wish that someone had commented much earlier to the OP about the need to clarify the question and include context $\endgroup$ – Carl Mummert Mar 18 '14 at 11:53
  • $\begingroup$ @CarlMummert The first comment asked for clarification, 2 minutes after the question was posted... $\endgroup$ – user1729 Mar 18 '14 at 11:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @user1729: yes. I have no way to tell whether the OP deleted any comments. Assuming they did not, that request in the comments was never answered - which is a reason to wait to reopen the question. But I am saying I wish that, beyond asking for a definition, earlier comments had pointed out the other issues in the question. There was even a later comment "6 downvote, you are about to crucify him !!!" by another user, but nobody told the OP the likely reason for the downvotes was that the question itself needed to be improved, until I left one the following day, before the post was reopened. $\endgroup$ – Carl Mummert Mar 18 '14 at 12:02
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ My own motivation for voting to delete is that the person who asked the question - an unregistered account with 1 rep and no other activity - has been inactive since the question was asked. Perhaps they got what they wanted out of comments, as suggested above. If not, they can always become active again and ask in improved version of the question with some clarifications. $\endgroup$ – Carl Mummert Mar 24 '14 at 12:15
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @user1729 Now it needs 2 more undelete votes. What a disgrace to the site that valid mathematical questions are being deleted. $\endgroup$ – Bill Dubuque Mar 24 '14 at 23:17
  • $\begingroup$ I voted to undelete. $\endgroup$ – MJD May 7 '14 at 15:36
1
vote
$\begingroup$

Please reopen https://math.stackexchange.com/q/709319/85079

I revised the question. Language and content are clear now. I tried to guess what closers didn't understand because they didn't comment. Please write me if something needs to be bettered.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The statement proposed for a proof is still absurd, for the exact reason explained in comments from the start. (And please note that nobody is vexed here.) $\endgroup$ – Did Apr 29 '14 at 12:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Did thanks. i revised my question again. rectified now? $\endgroup$ – Analysis Apr 29 '14 at 13:19
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ why the downvotes? $\endgroup$ – Analysis Apr 29 '14 at 20:26
1
vote
$\begingroup$

Please reopen https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/705347/redundant-proofs-of-weaker-issues-from-fundamental-theorems-of-calculus-in-spiv.

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/695146/mean-value-theorem-for-proving-a-function-is-lipschitz-and-contractive-s-a-pp

I revised the question. Language and content are clear now. I tried to guess what closers didn't understand because they didn't comment. Please write me if something needs to be bettered.

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

Please undelete and reopen https://math.stackexchange.com/q/678715/85079

I revised the question. Language and content are clear now. I tried to guess what closers didn't understand because they didn't comment. Please write me if something needs to be bettered.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ That question is deleted. $\endgroup$ – Tobias Kildetoft Apr 29 '14 at 13:34
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Dear Tucker, It seems that this question cannot be reopened, because of the manner in which it was deleted. I have posted a request to reopen your new question on the same topic. Regards, $\endgroup$ – Matt E May 5 '14 at 11:29
  • $\begingroup$ @MattE thank you. $\endgroup$ – Analysis May 14 '14 at 10:08
1
vote
$\begingroup$

Please reopen https://math.stackexchange.com/q/690026/85079

I revised the question. Language and content are clear now. I tried to guess what closers didn't understand because they didn't comment. Please write me if something needs to be bettered.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ The question has since been deleted. $\endgroup$ – user61527 May 20 '14 at 22:11
1
vote
$\begingroup$

Can someone please open https://math.stackexchange.com/q/787937/85100 ? I edited it just now. Please inform me on what's purported unclear?

$\endgroup$
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ What does it mean, "I want to intuit this (fetch)." What does it mean, "Are there illustrations?" That is what is unclear to me (well, that, and why anyone would need any intuition for $a-b\equiv-b\pmod a$). $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson May 11 '14 at 5:22
  • $\begingroup$ This question has since been auto-deleted. $\endgroup$ – user61527 May 20 '14 at 22:10
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[Re-opened]

The question Portia casket logic problem was incorrectly (I believe) marked as a duplicate. I guess no one noticed my comment to this effect, or my answer, which contradicts the accepted answer to the other question and should make the difference between the questions clear.

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

Will you please to reopen $\binom{n}{k}\binom{n}{n - k}$ vs $\binom{n}{k}$ - Differences? Similarities?

I just edited my question to shorten it, but I don't know if this is the concern. Please advise on concerns or suggestions. I'd be grateful if one would please explain what may be "unclear".

I thought to add that user Will Orrick's comments and other comments have helped and enlightened me, so I'd be grateful for a reopening in order for the comments to become answers which I can accept.

Supplementary: The question now has 3 reopen votes.

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

I don't think that this question is actually a duplicate. The newer question begins with a function harmonic on the unit disk, while the linked question has a function harmonic on the whole space.

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

I am requesting that this question be reopened. It was originally a mess (question and answer all in one), but has since been cleaned up.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ The question now has $4$ votes to close, all based on "missing context or details." I'd guess from people who don't see the fact that it's self-answered. $\endgroup$ – user61527 Jun 18 '14 at 21:27
  • $\begingroup$ @user61527: does that make a difference when the question is drafted in a way that immediately suggests closure? I am not convinced that we want to encourage self-answered questions; I have several concerns about them. But certainly we can expect them to be exceptional both in the drafting of the question and the drafting of the answer. $\endgroup$ – Carl Mummert Jun 19 '14 at 12:07
  • $\begingroup$ @CarlMummert I agree that questions like this should generally contain the answer in the question statement (or at a minimum clearly mark that they are self-answered), but I don't think that this is a reason for closure. $\endgroup$ – user61527 Jun 19 '14 at 18:19
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED; RECLOSED]

I am requesting that this question be re-opened.

I think it is an interesting question. It remind me of model theory and of category theory - it is almost a meta-mathematical question. I have no idea if it can be answered but that is no reason for it to be closed. That is: it is a question that so far noone knows how to answer it, but that does not mean that it does not admit an answer.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Would the downvoter care to comment? I want to hear your opinion :-) $\endgroup$ – user1729 Jun 13 '14 at 11:22
  • $\begingroup$ The question now has $4$ reopen votes. $\endgroup$ – user61527 Jun 14 '14 at 22:54
  • $\begingroup$ And now at $4$ votes to close. $\endgroup$ – user61527 Jun 19 '14 at 2:55
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED; RECLOSED]

This question should be reopened. It originally contained an opinion that has since been deleted from it, and apparently in consequence of that now-deleted opinion it was closed as an opinion-based question. Per Manne's comment under the question is a good answer, but it cannot be posted as an answer.

$\endgroup$
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ If 'How would you change math notation' is not 'primarily opinion-based', I don't know what is. $\endgroup$ – Grigory M Jul 13 '14 at 19:40
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I agree with reopening this question, but I think it ought to be made CW (and probably tagged big-list). $\endgroup$ – user61527 Jul 13 '14 at 21:39
  • $\begingroup$ Two people are reported to have voted to re-open this question after it was closed for the second time. I am told that I cannot vote to reopen it again. Are only those who didn't vote to reopen it the first time allowed to vote now? $\endgroup$ – Michael Hardy Jul 14 '14 at 19:57
  • $\begingroup$ @Michael: This is how I remember the behavior for quite a long time now. You get one close vote, you get one reopen vote; you get infinite delete and undelete votes (although using all of them may pose a challenge to modern physics, since there is a 30 delete votes daily limit). $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jul 14 '14 at 22:29
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

I would like to request to open this thread https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/886640/linear-transformation-representing-the-derivative-of-map.

The given reason was - "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." – 900 sit-ups a day, Ivo Terek, rogerl, le gâteau au fromage, Adam Hughes

However, I had already answered my own question. I wanted people to comment on my answer. I had already put down my thoughts below and they put it on hold for the question lacking the same! They should not have done what they did!

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

Please vote for undelete the following question: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/601765/dimension-and-multiplicity-of-modules-over-rings-not-generated-in-degree-one which I think can be of interest for the future users of M.SE.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Did you contact the author of the question (since they chose to delete it several months ago)? $\endgroup$ – Did Sep 1 '14 at 19:35
  • $\begingroup$ @Did Actually I can't see who is the author of the question. (Only users rated >10k can see a deleted question/answer.) $\endgroup$ – user26857 Sep 1 '14 at 19:39
  • $\begingroup$ But you do see the question, right (since you want it to be reopened)? $\endgroup$ – Did Sep 1 '14 at 19:42
  • $\begingroup$ @Did Of course not, but I've commented on this question some time ago and I remember that the question was interesting enough. $\endgroup$ – user26857 Sep 1 '14 at 19:44
  • $\begingroup$ There is no comment whatsoever on this question (which was deleted on April, 5). Not sure I am following what is going on here... $\endgroup$ – Did Sep 1 '14 at 19:46
  • $\begingroup$ @Did The most probably I've deleted my comment after a while if there wasn't any feedback from the OP. $\endgroup$ – user26857 Sep 1 '14 at 19:47
  • $\begingroup$ @Did: Note that there is a deleted answer, by a deleted user, whose user number corresponds to this user's username. I am guessing this is someone who went away and came back for one reason or another. Which is how they know about this question. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Sep 1 '14 at 20:46

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