-2

…hence indisputably, this question is on topic.

I would like to know any reasons, if any, based on which that would not be deemed the case on this SE site, and the reason why.

I am substantially entirely certain the question was closed in contravention of the Code of Conduct – please see the complaint in chat moved from comments.

2
  • 2
    For users, here is the link to the Code of Conduct
    – Mari-Lou A
    Sep 18, 2022 at 13:44
  • The number of names a person has and whether they are hyphenated for not are matters of cultural convention. Not the English language. :)
    – Lambie
    Oct 3, 2022 at 19:34

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
6

There's no 'indisputable'. Three people voted that it is off topic, and so that was enough to have it closed. You may not like this but there's no violation of CoC.

As to reasons why it was closed, the header in your question says that. It may not offer you convincing reasons but it is something. @Mari-lou gave her reasons in chat which is very charitable but never necessary as might think.

Three more people may come along and vote to reopen it (you know you yourself can vote to reopen).

You've done the right thing by asking on meta to try to reopen. That's how the process works.

7
  • You may want to ask over in Reddit, but you'll probably get very unsatisfying answers there. If it were reopened here I suspect there won't be any good answers here either
    – Mitch
    Sep 18, 2022 at 20:13
  • Clearly biased answer: Three of the 4 flags raised on CoC violations were affirmed, one on discrimination on one or more protected basis, one on harassment or bigotry, one as unfriendly or unkind. You can view them here: ibb.co/Pmk4C0h Nevertheless, no disciplinary action was taken yet so I will motion this case to a stackexchange employee if I will not see a resolution within 72 hours. The argument you are alluding to in chat that the question is opinion based is also moot: The question included 4 questions, most of which can be objectively answered without unreasonable effort […]
    – Zack Meggyessy
    Sep 18, 2022 at 22:32
  • […] by an ordinary user; (ii) a question doesn’t have to be plausible or even easy to answer for an ordinary user; a question may seek answers to questions that only from billion-word corpora can provide answers for as linguistic departments of universities and private companies tend to have such “lists” (corpora) for example you can easily obtain English corpora in the billion range for free from the Internet, and research may have already given a non-opinion based answer to the question. Accordingly, it is, indeed, indisputable that even one of the questions would merit reopening by mods.
    – Zack Meggyessy
    Sep 18, 2022 at 22:36
  • As to the main question, even without quantitative data on frequency of such phenomenon, even the mere assertion of any native English speaker can substantiate the basis of whether or not we deem such a linguistic phenomenon an integral part of any variants of the English language, and multiple opinions may indicate social consensus which is the per-definition basis of anything high-level in language.
    – Zack Meggyessy
    Sep 18, 2022 at 22:45
  • 4
    @ZackMeggyessy Please calm down and relax. I moved the digressive comment chain off the main site where it did not belong. No flags were "affirmed" in the sense you are thinking: had they been, those comments wouldn’t’ve been available for copying to the chatroom, as in fact occurred. They were not flag-deleted. // It is not your place to concern yourself with disciplinary action against any user but you yourself, and you wouldn't learn of any anyway. Please feel free to use the Contact link to commune with the Powers That Be if you believe that might help whatever you think your case is.
    – tchrist Mod
    Sep 18, 2022 at 23:42
  • @tchrist I will calm down once racism will be treated as it is expected on these sites. I would also appreciate if a good-faith consideration was made on the closure of the question in and of itself or at least in light of the points made since; that I will relate to you. The question was tagged under two tags that had existed prior to me making the question which clearly indicated precedent of questions relating to names and surnames being the proper subject of inquiry on this SE.
    – Zack Meggyessy
    Sep 18, 2022 at 23:49
  • 4
    @ZackMeggyessy I completely honestly have not yet paid any thought to the closers' reasoning, such as it was. All I've noticed is the text wall of bitter argumentation. Let's please not do that. We can look at the rest of the matter in good time. Perhaps other community members will reopen the question.
    – tchrist Mod
    Sep 18, 2022 at 23:51

You must log in to answer this question.

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