This meta post was prompted by this deleted question, which has received one request to undelete. There hasn't been a lot of response on meta, but the voting is currently favoring the "undeleting should require an edit to improve it first" answer. Would anybody like to make such an edit to this question?
@DoubleAA oh, thanks for pointing that out. I missed that in the comments before.
@Daniel you can see the similar question that DoubleAA linked. The text of the deleted question is: "Can someone have a concubine? If so, can one person have several of them?" It has one answer, and perhaps we should undelete in order to merge?
Oh wait; forget what I said about the answer. It wasn't deleted along with the question; it was separately deleted for other reasons. So there's nothing to merge.
@MonicaCellio Well, it was edited a few times. You're saying it should be edited further since deletion? What if some of the downvoters might have reversed their downvotes but did not get a chance to before the auto-deletion kicked in?
(I just had a flash of yesterday's discussion about herd mentality. Oy.)
@SethJ all of the pre-deletion edits occurred on Mar 28 and then community deleted on Apr 27. The votes are +2/-3 and we don't know when those occurred. I'm not sure what form the question should take if it comes back; I'm reacting to the top-voted meta answer saying the question should be changed from its pre-deletion state in some way (the "if it was good why was it auto-deleted?" reasoning).
I do note that the other meta answer (go ahead and give it a chance) has some support too. And, to complicate things, it may well be a duplicate anyway. So I'm not sure what to do in this case, hence the request for input.
@MonicaCellio I totally hear "if it was good why was it auto-deleted?" But the counterpoint to that could be that it got auto-deleted before downvotes could be reversed.
@MonicaCellio Yeah, I'm not sure about what to actually do here. I guess if someone wants to they can always re-ask it better.
(Including the OP.)
But Jim's been around here quite a bit, and he should be aware of that.
@SethJ Indeed. It's important to remember the existence of this remedy, especially when the deleted material represents so little in the way of productive effort.
@MonicaCellio, I see very little positive value in re-opening this question. If someone's really interested in the topic, let them post a higher-quality question (or make this one into one).
@MonicaCellio I flagged it originally because I thought the answer was OK. Then I saw that it was deleted on it's own (as a copyright violation). Now I'm not sure if it should be un-deleted.
@ShmuelBrin thanks. I didn't want to out you as the flagger and I saw you enter the room just after I made my last comment. I've cleared the flag but marked it as helpful, as it prompted the meta question and this discussion and that's good. If you'd like to ask a fresh question (that's not a duplicate of the other one linked here), please do!
@SethJ I'm not seeing a counter on the "undelete" link. Of course, that could be either that you didn't vote or you did but the counter isn't showing... (I assume that, as with delete and close votes, we're supposed to see the counter.)
@DoubleAA Fair enough, since kamatz gadol and patach are siblings. Kamatz katan, on the other hand (which does not appear in the phrase that's bothering you), is a sibling of cholam, is often pronounced accordingly, and is therefore more aptly transliterated with an 'o'.
Actually, in Boston English, Ashkenazic kamatz gadol is often used for 'o', as in "You can't park your car in Harvard yard. It ain't a parking lot." -> "'Y can't pahk 'y cah in Hahvahd yahd. It ain't a pahking lawt."
@DoubleAA "Ch" for ח is silly, too. On vacation in Puerto Rico, I was informed by the hotel concierge that "Shabad" had delivered my meal. I recommended that the concierge think of the first consonant, and pronounce it, as he would a "J".
If an individual writes a document for public consumption anonymously or pseudonymously and either explicitly or presumably desires to remain anonymous, is there a Halachic issue with publicly unmasking the author, or with publicly assembling information about the author toward the goal of unmask...
@eykanal Create your own summaries. I had a great class in high school in which we had to write 5 line summaries of 5 Perakim per week. We were then quizzed each Friday, and nearly everyone did surprisingly well - and at least I retained most of what I learned. We did this for Neviim Rishonim only, but hey, once you get through that you might find yourself able to continue on or modify your style to better suit the more esoteric Nevuoth of Neviim Aharonim.
I am, indeed, from Australia :) Didn't know I was making that obvious!
Thanks, Double AA and Dave for the info about the Rema and about the Mishna. You are both correct, though as far as the Rema goes, it seems as though the mechaber (62:1) is effectively saying there what I thought the Rema was saying on the previous passage anyway. I shall have to read it more closely. — Shimon bMJun 29 '12 at 4:23
@Daniel I've used SO forever, but I've only ever had to ask one question, and that was because I was just being thick. It's greatest virtue is that all the generally applicable questions have been asked, you just have to find it.
@HodofHod True, but there are certain topics that are lacking. For example, the questions about CUDA are usually very application specific and usually just a kind of silly mistake that the OP made
There were very few questions about Racket until recently
There is a question on Judaism.SE that got deleted by the Community user. This question isn't terrible (we have worse one's there), and I'm not complaining about this question in particular.
I wanted to vote to undelete it. However, it says "A moderator has deleted this post and it cannot be und...
@ShmuelBrin thanks! Looks like I did see it before (as I'd already upvoted it), but had forgotten. It's impossible to stay up to date on MSO, it seems...
Well the truth is, the simplest way to make a huge improvement to their search would be to incorporate synonyms and mispellings into results. Right now, those are completely ignored. Just building a database of synonyms would improve it tremendously.
I have nothing against other religions, but if you are in a certain context, as it mentioned, I believe that a certain sensitivity is required, keeping our belief aside (or inside) to prevent a unpleasant situation.
