4

I asked this question a month ago. I asked in the comments why there are downvotes and received a comment saying:

My guess is that the question got downvoted because it contains an unsupported, and most probable erroneous statement. Who says that MS-DOS is a Windows clone? Do you have any references on that?

Then I made an edit to the question. Then I received a comment saying:

After the edits, the question has become even more incoherent, with the title asking about a claim that the body first denies, then sort-of acknowledges (‘the "real" Windows actual descendants’ implies MS-DOS is somehow a ‘fake descendant’)… it’s a mess.

Then I made the next edit to the question. After that edit, the question was closed as needing details of clarity. After that I made another edit to the question and put it in the first reopen review queue. The edit was left closed in review as "Original close reason(s) were not resolved". Then I made another edit to the question and put it in the second reopen review queue. That edit was still left closed in review as "Original close reason(s) were not resolved". Then I made another edit to the question and put it in the third reopen review queue. That edit was still left closed in review as "Original close reason(s) were not resolved". Then I made another edit to the question and put it in the fourth reopen review queue. That edit was still left closed in review as "Original close reason(s) were not resolved". Now I have made another edit and put it in the fifth reopen review queue.

Why could the previous edits not reopen the question? What edits can I make this question clearer and will still keep the existing answers valid?

10
  • 2
    The question has accumulated quite a few reopen votes, so perhaps all you need is a little more patience. Mar 20, 2023 at 16:47
  • 2
    Closing and reopening are voted on by members, so either way some sort of consensus is needed. I did not vote on this one, but I think (a) the question should be answerable by a quick googling, and (b) the accepted answer adequately addresses the question, so I'm not seeing much benefit to re-opening. But I speak only for myself.
    – dave
    Mar 20, 2023 at 17:18
  • 3
    What is your goal with this question?
    – wizzwizz4 Mod
    Mar 20, 2023 at 22:25
  • @wizzwizz4 I just wanted to ask a question about MS DOS, whether it is a form of Windows. Mar 20, 2023 at 22:40
  • 1
    @ArunabhBhattacharya Okay: and you've asked that question, now. Why do you want it re-opened? I'm here to help curate a library of information, so that guides how I edit my closed questions (and prompts me to leave some of them closed). On Stack Overflow, I care more about getting specific problems solved. Depending on what you want out of this, I'd suggest different approaches for you.
    – wizzwizz4 Mod
    Mar 20, 2023 at 23:06
  • @wizzwizz4 The previous version of the question was closed as needing details of clarity. Now, that I have edited the question and made it clearer, I believe it should be reopened. Mar 21, 2023 at 2:33
  • 2
    @ArunabhBhattacharya It's just on the very edge of clarity, and it might not be on-topic. I can't suggest any edits of my own, because I don't know what you want from the question. Do you only want it re-opened because you think it should be classified correctly, or did you have some other goal / purpose in mind for it?
    – wizzwizz4 Mod
    Mar 21, 2023 at 2:41
  • @wizzwizz4, I think it should be classified correctly. Mar 21, 2023 at 3:11
  • 1
    @ArunabhBhattacharya Reformulating the question doesn't change the underlaying problem of missing even the most basic research, on RC.SE, but also in general. More important, you already got an answer and marked it as being the one you looked for. So, why asking for getting it reopened at all?
    – Raffzahn
    Mar 21, 2023 at 18:19
  • @Raffzahn I should have my questions reopened permanently. Mar 21, 2023 at 18:22

1 Answer 1

4

Let me try to make some suggestions:

You ask "What are the versions of Windows?". This is a list question and as such is not a good fit for the site, traditionally such questions are closed. It is also very vague as Windows is a term that covers a variety of products.

You ask "Is MS-DOS one of them?". This shows a misunderstanding of what Windows is and what MS-DOS is. Furthermore, MS-DOS itself went through several iterations during its production and you would need to be clearer as to what version(s), if any, you were interested in.

You seem to base your question on a post on Wikipedia, a notoriously unreliable source of information - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_Wikipedia_is_not_so_great . Indeed, some StackExchange sites have policies explicitly rejecting Wikipedia links in questions as "Inadequate research". The article you have linked contains some obvious errors. You may have based your question upon a false premise.

To summarize, your question is not at all clear and does is not a good fit for our site. In my view it should remain closed but the community will decide.

9
  • While agreeing on all said, I would like to put missing basic research as top most reason.
    – Raffzahn
    Mar 21, 2023 at 18:21
  • 1
    @Raffzahn:. Indeed. The misunderstanding of which I speak would have been eliminated with the most basic of research.
    – Chenmunka Mod
    Mar 21, 2023 at 18:40
  • 3
    But lack of research isn’t reason to close a question, it’s reason to downvote it. (I don’t think the question should be re-opened, not least because of the list question it contains, and also because it asks multiple questions.) Mar 22, 2023 at 8:32
  • 1
    Yes, lack of research alone doesn't justify closure.
    – Chenmunka Mod
    Mar 22, 2023 at 9:30
  • 2
    @StephenKitt You are right. And the question has been downvoted in extensive. Then again, one may attest a complete lack of any research in this case, which might turn it closer to random SPAM than a meaningful question. All supported by the rather crusade like style of forcing it by arguing about procedure instead of content - all the way to asking for a question to put in instead of the one asked. Making it a real odd kind of ego trip, not a search for knowledge. Summed up rather a candidate for deletion than closing.
    – Raffzahn
    Mar 22, 2023 at 16:20
  • 4
    @Raffzahn yes, the general attitude (“I should have my questions reopened permanently.” repeated several times, edit comments mentioning getting angry etc.) is why I voted to delete the question. Mar 23, 2023 at 7:58
  • 2
    Doing ‘basic research’ is a non-criterion. I think it’s fine in general to ask questions about basics, and even some questions about misconceptions, even as I get annoyed by them myself sometimes. I would, however, enforce a much more rudimentary requirements of literacy (employing correct terminology), explicability (explaining what led the asker to believe the question makes sense to ask) and coherence (connectedness and internal logical consistency of concepts mentioned). I am not sure, however, that this question would meet even those relaxed criteria. Mar 25, 2023 at 19:20
  • 1
    @user3840170 Works for me. No argument here. To me those criteria would represent a more fine definition of what basic research means - the most basic of getting at least familiar what one is asking about. In fact, I would like to see them added as guidelines about asking questions - maybe a bit more elaborated so everyone can understand how those prerequisites help to make a good question.
    – Raffzahn
    Mar 28, 2023 at 1:19
  • As per our guidelines, questions should be specific and have a clear problem statement that can be answered objectively. Additionally, the question should be about a specific technical problem related to retrocomputing. Mar 31, 2023 at 0:01

You must log in to answer this question.

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