This PSQ is reopened.

For deletion: d1, d2

@Saad Concerning that PSQ, I can't help, since I have already voted to close it. My doubt is: how can such a question have 18 upvotes?!

@JoséCarlosSantos Unsurprisingly it was done so by both the answerers

Sorry wrong link.

@TheSimpliFire Gone.

@user21820 thank you

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in answer, potentially bad keyword in answer, potentially problematic ns configuration in answer (88): Finding circumference without using $\pi$ by Muhammad Dilawar on math.SE

@SmokeDetector Deleted as spam.

@user21820 All 4 here still need more votes. I don't know who removed the pin, but I don't see why they shouldn't be closed and deleted.

@SmokeDetector good bot

Q lacking effort

@TheSimpliFire The asker deleted their question. I saw the question, and it is a classic PSQ, literally (a transcription of a problem statement that reads like it is a copy and paste from a textbook exercise, or a class problem sheet, and nothing more. To me the issue is not so much "lack of effort", as it is lack of any/all form(s) of context, where showing effort is the minimum accepted, last-resort form o

...form of context.

@amWhy there's an undelete vote....?!

@TheSimpliFire Likely cast by the 0-score answerer.

which makes me wonder why who is responsible for such votes are unknown until the entirety of the process (close/delete/reverse) is completed

unless there's a method that I'm not aware of

@TheSimpliFire I think re-openers are identified only in the edit history and time-line for the post. I've yet to understand why, when a post is closed, the users who voted to close said post are named below the closed question, and in the edit history, but voters who vote to reopen are not listed below the question itself, leaving the question looking like it was never closed then reopened. @quid care to discuss this?

@amWhy I think this will be better as a meta question, as it can lead to big discussion

And if I don't come up with anything, perhaps I should then post to the "real" MSE.

@amWhy why " in "real" MSE: meta.stackexchange.com?

I agree that this asymmetry is not ideal. What's more, when there was no edit it is invisible for all but the best informed users, as there is no link to the info at all.

I suppose the rational was not to have a too visible blemish on a reopened post.

I also agree that this likely came up already.

@Holo I just say this because outside the little ole math.stackexchange.com single site, the network interprets MSE to mean meta.stackexchange.com. I just realized this last year.

Oh, I see

@quid Since you can edit chat posts at any time: sp/ideal (probably only a typo), also likely typo: sp: reopened

@quid Off the top of your head, can you suggest possible promising search terms on main meta?

Oh, BTW, happy TGIF to all!

@MartinSleziak Nothing urgent here, I just am not very clear on some search word-combinations to try on meta.se, in my search to find previous posts about the asymmetry between the identification of close voters immediately below a closed question, versus the lack of such identification of those users who voted to reopen a question, after the question is reopened. More context regarding this concern can be gleaned in the above conversation thread (starting with my last reply to TheSimplifire

@amWhy I searched a bit to no avail. :(

@quid Yeah, same result I had :(

This question is too broad. It is one vote away from closure.

@XanderHenderson Closeol

Thanks.