What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 134 Stack Exchange communities.

Well, this question was previously framed as a "flame war" starting question.

It opens with,

At the risk of this turning info flame bait, my curiosity has gotten the better of me yet again and I have to ask what I feel to be a very compelling question.

Terrible opening for what otherwise is a good question. The question isn't a flame war unless you frame it that way. It's about performance of C vs Objective-C, there are studies on it and there are real answers to the that important question.

I edited the whole "I don't wanna start a flame war, but" bit out of the question, which actually makes it a fine question.

So I tried to post a comment notifying the people who closed the question that it isn't a flame war debate, it's a real question, but I got this:

note

share|improve this question

4 Answers 4

This is just a message that tells you that you cannot ping more than one user (aside from the OP) using the @userName function.

Your comment would have been visible to all who viewed the question, but you simply are not allowed to send a message that hits the notification area of more than one user.

share|improve this answer

What the message error is telling you is that you can @-refer only one user per comment, and that you would not need to explicitly mention the author of the post, as the author is always notified of new comments for the post s/he wrote. You can write a comment for each of the users you need to notify; you could also write "@username See my previous comment." after the first comment directed to one of the users who voted to close the question.

Truly, if you think that the question was wrongly closed, you don't need to write a comment to who voted to close it. Everybody can vote to re-open it. If you think the question should be re-opened, and you notice that leaving a comment about the question being wrongly closed doesn't have any effect, then you can open a question on the meta site, asking for the question to be re-opened.

share|improve this answer

What you did to help the question is awesome, but there is really no point in @pinging the 5 people who voted to close, not when there are potentially hundreds of viewers that will stumble over the post and see your edits and your comment.

What I would suggest in this situation is simply leave your comment, indicate that you are voting to reopen, and if other 3K+ users drop by and agree, they'll vote to reopen too.

Additionally, a <3K user might drop by and flag it for reopening. In this case, the 5 people who voted to close are inconsequential to getting the post reopened.

share|improve this answer
2  
This is correct: 5 users are just a minimal part of all the users who can vote to re-open a question, and they are not required to re-open a question. Rather than debating with who voted to close the question, it is better to find other users who think the question should not have been closed. –  kiamlaluno Sep 8 '12 at 19:14

The post came up for review beause you added a new answer to a very old question. Even though your answer looked ok, the question was very much a "Which language is the best" kind of question.

If you can fix the question to look better and be a reasonable question, that is fine. However, there is no reason to get the original close voters to change their minds (perhaps hard, we are stubborn). You can just as well get five other people to reopen the question.

Generally, Stack Overflow is not about the people involved, but about the questions and answers themselves. I often vote or comment ("What have you tried?") on posts, without ever coming back to check the end result.

Even if I voted to close the question, you don't need me to reopen it again. There are plenty of other people around who can do that.

share|improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

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