29
$\begingroup$

Since I expect this may prove rather useful, I'm blatantly purloining Asaf's question from meta.math.se.

Please post general requests for reopen votes as answers below.

Beware that "short" requests such as "request reopening of <link>" may be automatically converted to comments by the SE software, so you will need to say more, such as why you think that the question should be reopened.

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 thread - which can be linked to from here.

If a question is reopened then please put [REOPENED] at the start of the request (answer).

Of course, each requested question may need some editing or other improvements before it is fit, and as indicated elsewhere, this is desirable, and I hope may be expedited through this thread.

(Improvements on the phrasing are welcome.)

$\endgroup$
9
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Not entirely necessary. There's a reopen queue now. A closed post can be put into the reopen queue by editing or voting to reopen. 3k+ users can vote to reopen (or alternatively vote against it). If this mechanism fails, then one can open a separate meta post about the question. I find that this is a more efficient process :) $\endgroup$ Jun 27 '13 at 21:10
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @Manishearth: Not everyone has access to the queue history, so not everyone can tell when a thread has been "outlived its review" and it is time to come to meta. In the long run, I think it's better to have one post for "run of the mill reopen votes" rather than having more and more separated questions whose answers would consist mostly of "Done." $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Jun 27 '13 at 22:06
  • $\begingroup$ @AsafKaragila Yeah, I see your point -- but "outlived its review" can just mean "wait a day", regardless of its queue status. So, if a reopen vote or edit doesn't push it out of the queue in a day, then come to meta (and post on this post, or separately -- IMO separate meta posts lead to better discussion, but that's just me). But if you take a look at the MSE post: Most of the recent ones are either obvious nos (closed post) user whinging about closed post, or obvious yes's (Awesome edit improved post). $\endgroup$ Jun 27 '13 at 22:31
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ These can be dealt with fairly within the review queue itself; giving an explicit platform on meta for people to whinge or where people feel obliged to post obvious reopens is imo unnecessary. Again, I don't know much about MO or MSE, so I could be grossly wrong here :). Just giving an outsider's viewpoint. $\endgroup$ Jun 27 '13 at 22:32
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I agree with Manishearth: with the new "on-hold" -> edit -> add to re-open review queue mechanism, threads like this should be much less necessary. $\endgroup$ Jun 28 '13 at 9:21
  • $\begingroup$ @AsafKaragila Btw, this is why doing it separately is imo better, you get a lot more feedback and discussion. $\endgroup$ Jun 28 '13 at 16:59
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I dont want to interfere here with anything but I disagree with Manishearth about the usefulness of this Request to Reopen List. At Math SE I have observed that it works very well and efficiently to get questions reopend without making much fuzz about it. At Physics SE, we controversely discuss each question that somebody thinks should get reopend at meta seperately at length with the effect that people just discuss instead of just doing it, and almost nothing gets reopend at the end. $\endgroup$
    – Dilaton
    Jul 3 '13 at 17:44
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Reopening questions the way people at Math SE do, has in my opinion the additional advantage that people who have less than 3000 rep and therefore not yeat access to the Reopen queue can take part in the reopen process by upvoting the answers of this post, which makes reopening of questions that deserve it more efficient. $\endgroup$
    – Dilaton
    Jul 3 '13 at 17:54
  • $\begingroup$ People are now misusing this post in order to find questions related to the closed/deleted questions to downvote and close. $\endgroup$ Apr 17 '19 at 3:13

108 Answers 108

3
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

Why did Bourbaki ignore the theory of categories? only survived 25 hours in 2013, collecting 5 answers; it has been closed ever since. The reason given (“not constructive”, “will likely solicit debate, arguments,...” rather than “facts, references,...”) would no longer be an option, and seems refuted by the facts, references, etc. since added in low-visibility comments.

While not intent on writing an answer myself, I don’t think it would hurt to clear the way for others to do so. (As of now, there are 4 votes to reopen, so only 1 more is needed — until they expire.)

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

[UNDELETED]

I propose to undelete my question:

Something like mathoverflow in other sciences

It was asked in the early days of MO and has some useful links and information. I Have no idea why some people wanted to delete it 11 months ago.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

A chess question of W.T. Tutte has been closed for at least 5 years. The only argument given for its closure at the time was that a moderator saw it as a question of chess strategy. I think the first phrasing was not clear. Most of the answers (including the green-ticked one) are indeed "chess answers".

However, it is not a question of chess strategy, it is a mathematics question, and my reply (14 upvotes currently) reports on a novel non-constructive result which is not limited to chess, but can apply to any game where widespread strategy-stealing is possible.

Looking through the page of guidelines as to why else this question might be marked "off-topic", the only thing which caught my eye is whether this is an "open question". It seems impossible to prove the largest question: that chess is not a win for Black. However there are many easier related Combinatorial Game Theory ideas, including scope strategy-stealing, symmetric zugzwangs, transition between hot & cold games and possibly random games.

Please can you re-open this question, and un-green-tick the current accepted answer (which has just 2 upvotes). Thank you.

$\endgroup$
7
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ As far as I know only the original asker can untick the accepted answer. This remark would have to be posed as a request in a comment on the question itself. I don't know if the closed status of the question interferes with the OP's ability to do so, though. $\endgroup$ Jan 22 at 10:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The original asker was last seen on MathOverflow in March of 2018, so unaccepting may be asking too much. $\endgroup$ Jan 22 at 12:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks for the useful comments. If it's problematic to unaccept, I suppose I would say it's kind of secondary - the main request is to unclose the question, please. $\endgroup$ Jan 22 at 15:36
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Upvoted and voted to reopen; I enjoyed reading Andrew's contribution, and while I agree that open questions should be avoided this question is labeled as a reference request; the OP isn't looking for an answer to the open problem, only the most cutting edge literature which I think is a) an appropriate question for combinatorial game theorists and b) provided by Andrew's answer as far as I can tell. $\endgroup$
    – Alec Rhea
    Jan 22 at 22:36
  • $\begingroup$ So... what's happening now? Forget about the accepted answer. The question remains closed. This is all very opaque and unsatisfactory. Please can any moderator who reads this and feels it should not be reopened can reply here to explain their position. Thank you $\endgroup$ Jan 30 at 2:44
  • $\begingroup$ You keep referring to "moderators", Andrew. So far as I can see, no moderator has had anything to do with the question. The comments, and the five votes to close, all came from ordinary users, not from moderators. The moderators of this site are generally reluctant to get involved in matters that can be settled by users. I'm out of suggestions as to what to do next. Sometimes, you do your best, and lose anyway. $\endgroup$ Jan 30 at 23:19
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, Gerry. So there's no reason why the closers should visit here. How close are we to unclosing it? All I can think to add is some info about Bill Tutte himself. He wasn't just one of the founders of graph theory, he was one of the heroes of British code-breaking. When I visited Bletchley Park, I saw an exhibition dedicated to Tutte's achievements. As one website says: "Alan Turing cracked the Enigma Code with knowledge of what the technology looked like, Bill [Tutte] cracked the Lorenz Code without knowledge of what the technology looked like and how it worked." $\endgroup$ Jan 31 at 15:34
2
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

This question, which started out extremely confused, is now a well defined question asking for a sketch of a proof of a theorem of Serre in differential geometry. Probably not a great question, but it seems like the sort of question we would have accepted if it were asked in this form to begin with, so I've voted to reopen.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

Please have a look at the comments at https://mathoverflow.net/questions/135605/how-to-discover-counterexamples-and-required-objects? and consider voting to reopen.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ On a procedural note: why is this (already) posted here, when the question had already its own meta question? (In addition to being still on the frontpage, even now hours later, so it was presumably fairly to the top when this was posted.) $\endgroup$
    – user9072
    Jul 3 '13 at 12:55
  • $\begingroup$ @quid, I didn't see that meta question. There was no link to it at the original, and nothing in the name of the meta question to draw my attention to its relevance here. Shall I withdraw this question? $\endgroup$ Jul 3 '13 at 13:38
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ thank you for the reply. I do not think it is necessary to withdraw this post now. My comment was also meant to help form some consensus when one should post here. I take you reply as you agreeing with me that in principle one should rather not do so in parallel with an existing meta-disussion on the question. I agree the meta-question in this case was hard to notice, which I tried to fix now, before even noticing you reply. $\endgroup$
    – user9072
    Jul 3 '13 at 13:43
2
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

This question, on a geometric inequality, was closed due to its poor original wording. After the edit, it appears to be a reasonable problem.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The question was closed not due to its poor original wording but because the author intentionally concealed information about known results (some published, some not), relevant numerical evidence, etc., apparently in order to issue a "challenge". I think it's great that Andres has edited the question to add this information but as long as the OP has made no effort to cooperate, or acknowledge Andres's efforts, I am reluctant to vote to reopen. $\endgroup$ Jul 15 '13 at 6:26
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ There's of course a good argument for saying that we want good questions wherever they come from. But there's a countervailing good argument for saying that bad behavior will tend to get your question closed. $\endgroup$ Jul 15 '13 at 6:27
  • $\begingroup$ (I agree with Steven.) $\endgroup$ Jul 15 '13 at 6:53
  • $\begingroup$ As the question stands now it is a blatant nonsense--the sum of points on a unit circle $\ S,\ $ centered at $\ 0\ $ is not $\ 0,\ $ not in general. Consider $\ n=1.\ $ or any positive $\ n.$ $\endgroup$ Feb 26 '15 at 4:13
2
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

The question

The probability for a streak when tossing a coin

was closed quickly, but as far as I know, this is not an exercise. There is a complicated approximation in Feller's classic text.

As suggested in this question, I put more discussion in a separate thread.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

Question on a concrete example of n points has been improved considerably since it was closed and might be considered for re-opening.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

The question Proving $\sum_{k=0}^{2m}(-1)^k{\binom{2m}{k}}^3=(-1)^m\binom{2m}{m}\binom{3m}{m}$ was closed as "off-topic." As far as I can tell, it is reasonable, and of interest to many as shown by the answer, upvotes, comments, and favorites. Quite a few mathematicians find this identity interesting, don't know Dixon's Theorem, and would take a while to prove it on their own.

I added a tag and rewrote the request for help to look a little more professional. I don't think that those should be grounds for closing. They are reasons to edit the question or perhaps vote it down, but not to block others from answering the question.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Isn't the idea of being "on hold" (rather than "closed") precisely so these changes you suggest are implemented? Once the changes are in place, and things appear reasonable, reopening it is the natural course of action. (This is the same idea behind closing votes being reversible, isn't it?) $\endgroup$ Sep 28 '13 at 6:17
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You do not need to close a question in order to add a relevant tag, or to make a minor change. Closing this question blocked Mark Wildon from answering it. How does that help? $\endgroup$ Sep 28 '13 at 6:19
  • $\begingroup$ (The question has been reopened, by the way. The last opening vote was mine.) I agree, but some people feel it should be the OP who carries out these changes. $\endgroup$ Sep 28 '13 at 6:22
2
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

I asked in a separate thread about the closing of the question a question on 0-1 valued stochastic process, located at a question on 0-1 valued stochastic process, and it was suggested that here would be the good place to bring it up.

The question was closed very speedily - I'm not particularly sure why. It's surely not a very exciting question, and I think it has a fairly straightforward answer, but it seems reasonable for someone to ask. I wouldn't be surprised if a colleague asked me it in the department. Anyway, I don't have strong feelings; but I am surprised that the question was migrated to stats.stackexchange, since as far as I can see, it isn't even on-topic there - that site is supposedly for "statistics, machine learning, data analysis, data mining, and data visualization" (although possibly the usage is broader than that definition).

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ It appears that the migration to stats was rejected. $\endgroup$ Apr 9 '15 at 0:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Actually, the stats mod reported that it would have been on-topic for their site, but also that it might fare better at MO if it were reopened. It is currently on hold at MO and could be reopened with five votes. Incidentally, James, is this a question you'd be prepared to answer? $\endgroup$
    – Todd Trimble Mod
    Apr 9 '15 at 1:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ As a stats.SE moderator, I can confirm @Todd's comment regarding this question being on-topic at stats. We'll consider clarifying the scope a little bit on our help pages. Thanks for mentioning it. Cheers. $\endgroup$
    – cardinal
    Apr 9 '15 at 21:27
2
$\begingroup$

[UNDELETED]

The question

Does there exist some $C$ independent of $n$ and $f$ such that $ \|f''\|_p \geq Cn^2 \| f \|_p$, where $1 \leq p\leq \infty$?

seemed decent enough and had a good answer from Christian Remling, but was deleted by its author. Do we have a standard policy here for self-deleted posts?

$\endgroup$
5
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ An answer (mathoverflow.net/a/231246) has been reinstated, and Remling claims the previous answer was wrong. $\endgroup$ Feb 17 '16 at 6:10
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ For the record: I am not sure about a standard policy, but excepting unusual circumstances including noticeable spite or vandalism (inapplicable in this case), I can see little reason not to just accept the author's wishes regarding the status of their answer. There is a reason self-deletes do not even show up in the standard list of deleted posts. $\endgroup$
    – user9072
    Feb 17 '16 at 7:28
  • $\begingroup$ @quid: my issue wasn't with the deletion of the answer, but the deletion of the question $\endgroup$
    – Yemon Choi
    Feb 17 '16 at 12:47
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry I misunderstood this, in part due to the preceding comment. For deletion of questions, I would say the same, except if it is unmotivated and/or deletes valuable answers in the process. This case is rare as the software is by now very rigid in this regard (this used to be more flexible). A delete of a question with answer is only possible if there is only one answer and this answer has no upvote (note it really no upvote, not positive score). This question however seems to have fallen in that segment, and I tend to support the undelete here. (But if in doubt I'd respect OP's intent.) $\endgroup$
    – user9072
    Feb 17 '16 at 13:32
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Minor correction: "if it deletes valuable answers and is not clearly motivated" is closer to what I want to say. $\endgroup$
    – user9072
    Feb 17 '16 at 13:40
2
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

Boundary conditions for Klein-Gordon equation

The author has responded to comments and edited the question into a form that is much clearer, and in fact bringing it into the realm of active research. Just need 2 more re-open votes last I checked.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

[UNDELETED]

Unreasonable application of mathematics to the other areas

I may be biased, but the deletion of this question, together with both its answers [and Todd's very pertinent correction], seems an overly drastic action, which I would suggest to undo.

The SE deletion policy, "a post that no longer adds anything to the site should be deleted" does not seem quite applicable here.

$\endgroup$
5
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I agree. Closing a question still leaves it visible, and deleting seems uncalled for except in extreme cases. $\endgroup$
    – Lucia
    Jun 30 '16 at 7:22
  • $\begingroup$ It's not clear to me why answers to the question in question can't just be posted as answers to the earlier linked question 61408. $\endgroup$ Jun 30 '16 at 23:24
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson --- I don't know of a way to transfer answers + comment thread from one question to another (put perhaps the moderators have this capability); in any case, I thought that closing rather than deleting the question is the way to proceed with duplicates, isn't this how we have always done it? $\endgroup$ Jul 1 '16 at 6:35
  • $\begingroup$ What I had in mind, Carlo, was that the people who posted to the one thread could just copy their posts and paste them on the other. Or, someone (you?) could do that for them (giving full credit, of course, and making the answers CW, if desired). But, yes, I think that moderators can do that for questions closed as duplicates. Once the answers are transferred, by whatever means, I'd think the one question could be deleted, no harm done. $\endgroup$ Jul 1 '16 at 10:58
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Gerry (and Carlo) Moderators do have the power to merge questions after one is closed as the duplicate of the other. I imagine this functionality is less known since there is simply less call for it on this site. Merging question will delete and lock one of the copies and transfer all comments/answers to the other copy. It is actually used quite a bit on Math.SE. $\endgroup$ Jul 1 '16 at 18:46
2
$\begingroup$

[UNDELETED] - but at the moment still closed – but now redeleted.

The question

https://mathoverflow.net/questions/277564/computer-aided-investigation-of-zeta-anyone-has-input

is about a certain inequality for the Riemann zeta function which, if true (in a certain domain), is stronger than the RH (in that domain). The question is if this or related inequalities were considered before or about any other insights regarding it. This looks like a good research level question and I don't understand why it was closed or deleted. I propose to undelete and open it.

Update: The question was answered in the comments and I propose to keep it close but not to delete it.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I've voted to undelete. In the question he links to a preprint of his in the General Mathematics section of the arXiv called "A study of the Riemann zeta function" and he has another preprint there called "A study of Fermat's last theorem". Now, a brief look didn't suggest that either was crankery, but I can understand how people might jump to that conclusion. $\endgroup$ Aug 7 '17 at 12:38
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ About your update: "The question was answered in the comments and I propose to keep it close but not to delete it." This is not really possible unless the question gains some upvotes. A question with negative score and no answer is deleted after 30 days - unless the mods lock the post. Some details are listed in help and further details can be found in the links listed here. $\endgroup$ Aug 8 '17 at 10:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Martin, indeed, the question has been redeleted by "Community". $\endgroup$ Aug 15 '17 at 13:35
2
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

This cw question (on the spelling of Chebyshev and Cholesky) has good answers and I think it deserves to be reopened. (The sole Chebyshev case was worth a specific discussion, and for this reason I think it's fine to have it here rather than on a linguistics forum.)

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Status: [REOPENED]

Request to reopen What is the endgoal of formalising mathematics?

I think it's a good question about an important contemporary evolution of mathematics and found the few arguments to close it not really convincing. It attracted several good answers so far.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

The question on Contraction mapping principle was recently closed, but it is not a clear case of off-topic question. I thought it would be good to bring it up here for consideration.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Perhaps not clearly off-topic, but it does look like a peculiar question to me. I am guessing OP saw the stated theorem ("Th.") in a book or paper somewhere and wants to know what it's good for. It would help to know what book or paper it was, so that some needed context could be divined. $\endgroup$
    – Todd Trimble Mod
    Nov 4 '13 at 14:30
1
$\begingroup$

[Deleted by the OP]

I wonder if we were too quick to close https://mathoverflow.net/questions/137103/proving-finite-representation-of-integers-in-irrational-bases --- from one of the comments, it appears that this may be research-level mathematics.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Certainly I was hasty, but my goat was got somewhat by "phinary" and "Cantor dust"; also @ARupinski's comment seems to suggest insufficient thought put in by the OP. $\endgroup$
    – Yemon Choi
    Jul 19 '13 at 0:00
  • $\begingroup$ @Yemon, certainly some cases are easy, and there was no indication OP had thought through them. But it looks like there is some meat on that bone. $\endgroup$ Jul 19 '13 at 0:20
  • $\begingroup$ I made the comment referred to above. As in a further comment I made on the original question, I think the question should be made more precise before reopening. $\endgroup$
    – user25199
    Jul 23 '13 at 8:31
  • $\begingroup$ Also, more generally, is it worth making a comment or edit to original questions to alert people to the discussion here? $\endgroup$
    – user25199
    Jul 23 '13 at 8:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Carl, I've added a comment to the question (although it will only alert people who look at the question). $\endgroup$ Jul 23 '13 at 8:47
1
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

I think the following question looks reasonable to me: Bussgang theorem for cyclostationary processes

It was closed as "unclear what you're asking". But with all due respect to those who voted to close, I don't think most of them are very familiar with cyclo-stationary processes - I could easily imagine the question being completely clear and unambiguous to someone actually working in this area.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

The question Isomorphism problem for two radical extensions originally had an error in its formulation. This was subsequently corrected by OP, and the question seems quite interesting and has attracted good answers (including one that somehow came in after the question was closed!). I think it should be reopened.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

This question If $\binom{2p}{p}$ is $(-1)^{p-1} \bmod 2p+1$ is then $2p+1$ prime? was mistakenly closed (by me, among others). I have cast my vote to reopen. The question has been answered in interesting comments by Robert Israel and YCor.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

I fixed the question Hom-set with functions and arguments as requested to be self contained and clear.

( I asked the question very late last night and only was able to fix it this morning in the UK. )

UPDATE: The question never got reopened, and has since been deleted.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Dear Henry, I undeleted your question but it is up to the community to reopen it. $\endgroup$ Aug 31 '15 at 23:24
  • $\begingroup$ Re-deleted 1 September 2015. $\endgroup$ Oct 8 '15 at 22:27
1
$\begingroup$

[UNDELETED] (and upvoted to prevent redeletion)

This question does not seem unreasonable to me, and did not attract any votes or comments before it was auto-deleted. Perhaps it simply did not catch people's attention?

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I voted to undelete on the general principle that questions with no downvotes and which were not closed should not be auto-deleted. If a third person votes to undelete, they should perhaps vote the question up or the same thing will happen again. $\endgroup$
    – Lucia
    Nov 23 '15 at 15:04
1
$\begingroup$

[UNDELETED]

The question On isolated points of the approximate point spectrum of a bounded operator looks reasonable and did not attract any negative comments or downvotes. I propose that it should be undeleted.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

[UNDELETED]

The question Generalized arithmetic progressions contained in Bohr sets looks reasonable and did not attract any negative comments or downvotes. I propose that it should be undeleted

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

The question product distinct prime factors of prime(n)-1 and prime(n)+1 has been closed as "unclear". I edited in a suggested clarification, and OP has indicated that my edit conveys OP's intentions. Please consider voting to reopen.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

Basic Definition and Notations in RWRE is exactly what it says: a question about definitions and notation used in the study of random walk in random environment (RWRE) within probability theory. This is a very active research area, with a rather specific and idiosyncratic vocabulary and notation which can certainly be challenging for newcomers to the topic. These notions are not part of the standard graduate probability curriculum; at best one might see them in an advanced special topics course.

I think this question is certainly research level and should be reopened. I left a comment to that effect which has 4 upvotes. The question itself also has 4 upvotes and 0 downvotes.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I agree with Nate and have voted to undelete $\endgroup$
    – Yemon Choi
    Jul 11 '16 at 22:28
1
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

I nominate this question because it is not clear to me why it should be off-topic.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

The OP of Comparison of the classical Fourier transform and the Fourier-Mukai transform made an edit two days ago to add more focus to the question, and requests reconsideration. There are currently two votes to reopen the question, but since it has fallen off the front page, other users might not have noticed.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

[DELETED]

I think that between the editing and the comments this question has been clarified and can be reopened.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ You think the question should be reopened, but doesn't deserve an upvote? -- I think it seems a bit weird to vote to reopen a question with no upvote, but 4 downvotes ... . $\endgroup$
    – Stefan Kohl Mod
    Feb 9 '17 at 14:16
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Stefan, I'm sure the downvotes came before the editing. $\endgroup$ Feb 9 '17 at 21:46
  • $\begingroup$ Have voted to reopen $\endgroup$
    – Yemon Choi
    Mar 15 '17 at 16:04
  • $\begingroup$ @Yemon, the question was deleted some weeks ago. I imagine it has to be undeleted before it can be reopened. $\endgroup$ Mar 15 '17 at 22:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson: now undeleted $\endgroup$
    – Yemon Choi
    Mar 16 '17 at 2:19
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson Meanwhile the question has been autodeleted again since it is still closed and has non-positive score. To resurrect the question, it would take 3 undelete votes, 3 more reopen votes and either 5 upvotes (to reach score 1) or an answer, in order to permanently prevent it from being autodeleted again. $\endgroup$
    – Stefan Kohl Mod
    Mar 18 '17 at 20:42

You must log in to answer this question.

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