5
$\begingroup$

I have a question that was deleted and some closed when I was just getting started as an author (again here after many years). I did not think the closure and deletion was fair, but I had no reputation to be able to do anything about it. Plus I was not so familiar with meta until most recently.

One such article is entitled "What Ionization Does Classical Physics Predict With the Two Moving Rings of Charge Model for Helium-Like Ions", Heather drastically edited the question to try and restore it, but it did not go back into hold status even so. What needs to be done with this question here to get it back online?

Regarding my current situation, I saw and read

This question already has an answer here:

What can be done in order to re-open a closed question? 2 answers

But that was an entirely different situation, where the article was identifiable and also the senior members of the community provide discrete recommendations on how to perhaps bring the question up-to-par. The referenced article suggested not to just re-post an archive of the original question, but what can be done, else-wise?

One very senior person in the community was trying to mentor and help me get the question to be up-to-par but then I had no permission to edit it to make it better, to learn from someone more the more senior community member what to do.

How is it possible for an author to search for his deleted questions to modify them and make them acceptable again much later?

It should stand to reason that after an author gains experience on the site that he his better to edit and ask - and that the site would want to take advantage of that, right?

One of the below comments is very helpful for me to solve this situation:

Qmechanic - thank you for your links: they are very useful. I am a little new still in what to do to restore a deleted article? Should the article title be posted on meta, or how can someone reach out for help to take the good out of the question and get it back online?

  1. Concerning comments see here.
  2. It is possible to see your own closed questions by design.
  3. By the word 'closed' did you mean 'deleted'? If yes, please edit your above meta post accordingly. FWIW, the deleted questions (associated with your account) are here & here. – Qmechanic
$\endgroup$
12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 1. Concerning comments see here. 2. It is possible to see your own closed questions by design. 3. By the word 'closed' did you mean 'deleted'? If yes, please edit your above meta post accordingly. Deleted questions cannot be searched. FWIW, the deleted questions (associated with your account) are here & here. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic♦ Jun 19 '17 at 14:11
  • $\begingroup$ Note that you always have edit privileges on your own posts - can you clarify what post you were trying to edit, and what difficulties you had in editing it? $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Jun 20 '17 at 13:46
  • $\begingroup$ There is also advice on reopening questions in the mother meta (here and here). And while we're here: asking about a paper that "was recently published in an independent journal" without mentioning that you are the author is intellectually dishonest and it is unacceptable here as much as anywhere else - it's little less than spam. $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Jun 20 '17 at 13:54
  • $\begingroup$ Emilio Pisanty - I appreciate your attempt to provide something concrete about the reason for deletion; but to quote from the article "was recently published in an independent journal" does not educate. Edits can be made by various people to a post here. We have to be careful to not attack an article that cannot be generally referenced to see if the attack is meaningful. But in my mind the author should almost always have the opportunity to correct any deficiency. We should again open the original up to hold/comment - perhaps to a restricted audience of "judges" /not the general public. $\endgroup$ – Stephen Elliott Jun 21 '17 at 7:49
  • $\begingroup$ Qmechanic - thank you for your links: they are very useful. I am a little new still in what to do to restore a deleted article? Should the article title be posted on meta, or how can someone reach out for help to take the good out of the question and get it back online? $\endgroup$ – Stephen Elliott Jun 21 '17 at 9:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Stephen Note that if you don't @ reply to comments, people don't get notified of your responses. $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Jun 21 '17 at 9:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @StephenElliott You misunderstood my comment. Referencing your own work per se is not a problem; it's doing so without making clear and explicit your involvement with any resources you cite or link to that is unacceptable (and what pushes this question over into spam territory). That is a basic academic precept and it does not get lifted because you're on the internet. $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Jun 21 '17 at 9:52
  • $\begingroup$ That said, you should carefully read the guidance here: this site is not all things to all people, and it is not a substitute to peer review. This is particularly the case for this question, which is unlikely to be editable to meet the site standards - I would counsel you to learn from the experience and move on. $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Jun 21 '17 at 9:59
  • $\begingroup$ I restore them by first fixing it, and then flagging for mod attention. Alternatively, you can visit the site chat and putting up the suggestion. Note, in any case your initiative will be examined, your question should be really reopenable/undeletable. The most important part is: 1) don't give up, remain in communication 2) listen and understand, what do the others say. | The ordinary reopen process often looks up the questions, but if you actively consults with the others, and you are cooperative, everything is reachable. $\endgroup$ – peterh Jun 21 '17 at 21:47
  • $\begingroup$ I let undelete my this post after 3 years... and I got upvotes... $\endgroup$ – peterh Jun 21 '17 at 21:47
  • $\begingroup$ I think there may be some concern about the use "independently published on the newyorkbusinessreview.com"; at the time, the reason it needed to be "independently" published was that the restrictions were severe on the Physics Exchange site that a new user (like myself then) has no way to convey the full article properly. For instance, references are limited to three if I remember correctly - which is completely inadequate for this sort of subject. $\endgroup$ – Stephen Elliott Jun 25 '17 at 12:39
  • $\begingroup$ @StephenElliott To be completely clear: the ball is in your court at this point. It's been made crystal clear that undisclosed references to your own work is inappropriate (see also this FAQ question). If you wish to act on that information to fix your posts, you're free to do it, and they will be reviewed. If you do not act on that information, then the posts' status (closed or deleted, resp.) is at present as it should be. $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Jun 27 '17 at 17:03