If I am permanently blocked from asking and answering questions and I edited one of my low quality bad questions and changed everything, including subject, topic, caption, title, body, context and etc and now it is a completely different new question and this question appears to be "good" question.  Will this increase my reputation and allow me to ask and answer questions again?  EDIT: I am NOT improving the existing question, but changing the existing question.  I think that these two actions are different.  Improving a question means that the topic is unchanged, but other things, like grammar, details and etc so the question is more readable, understandable and attractive but with the same topic. After improving this is still the same question.  Changing a question means that the topic is different and this is not the question that was asked from first place. Everything changed, the title, body, context and etc. After changing this is a different question.  Am I wrong? In English "improving" doesn't mean that I can change everything necessarily. Can in improving an existing question I can change everything, so the question is different. Can improving an existing question change the topic of the question?
117
If you are reading this, you may have been affected by one of our post quality bans. If so, it is important that you  to understand what has happened and how to regain the permissions that you lost. While trying to ask a question, one could see:  We are no longer accepting questions from this account. See  to learn more.  Likewise, for answers:  We are no longer accepting answers from this account. See  to learn more.   Why am I getting this message? Are deleted posts taken into account too? Is a question/answer ban the same as a suspension? How do I avoid getting a question ban? How long do I have to wait before I can post again? What can I do to release the ban? How can I reactivate my account? Can I simply create a new account? I'll just ask somewhere else on the SE network, and they'll migrate my question to the correct site! Will a ban on one Stack Exchange site affect my standing on other sites in the network? Does this apply to meta sites too? My account is in good standing. Why am I still blocked?
20579
Let's say that there is a question asked in a bad manner, in a way that the question is missing. For example the user shows the code and doesn't explain very well which is the problem.    Usually someone starts digging in the OP mind posting comments and asking him for details. It may happen that the question gets edited and the OP edits it to a valid question.    Do you usually give the OP time to edit the question or you immediately vote to close it?
45258
It is possible for users to edit an existing post.   How do edits work? Who may edit a question or answer? How can you tell what has been changed between edits?      For more information, see "" in the .     Related:
114986
I got  in the re-open vote queue.  I noticed it is marked as a duplicate of a question titled Complete and utter nonsense, which was a bit suspicious. So I looked at the bottom of that question and found out it was closed as duplicate by a single user with the new close-vote superpowers.  When going to the duplicate question (the one titled ), I noticed that the same user with the superpowers changed the title of that question and edited the only answer to say If you're reading this, you've posted a question that makes no sense what so ever !.  While this is quite funny, and perhaps both of the questions are low quality and don't make sense (I don't have a gold badge on the relevant tag, so who am I to say), this behavior seems to abuse both the new superpower (since if the new question makes no sense, it shouldn't be closed as a duplicate of a non related question, it should be closed as off topic or unclear) and the edit privileges (what was done to the older question looks like vandalism to me).  This is definitely not a behavior I expect from a 100k+ rep user.  What do you think should be done in this case?
113948
I read a question, thought it was interesting, voted it up. It needed some editing, so I started fixing all the grammar mistakes, added punctuation, improved sentence structure; I realized that the quality of this question was very low - it felt like the OP didn't put any effort into it at all - no evidence of research was provided, and a very unclear question was asked.   I changed my mind about the upvote, but I couldn't change my vote until the post was edited. In a couple of minutes my edit was accepted, and I was able to change it to a downvote.  Is it normal? It just seems weird that your own edit can let you change your vote on a question.
74957
This is sort of a follow-up to a feature request that resulted in obscuring spam / offensive content from 10K-visible answers:   Suggest the same to be done for questions. As of now, spam questions (, ) preserve their titles and content. Suggest to revise the titles to something like     This question was marked as spam or offensive and is therefore not shown   And the text to something like:     This question was marked as spam or offensive and is therefore not shown - you can see the revision history for details".   Where "the revision history" links to the question revision history.    For those interested, here is a link to screen shots of how spam shines through my flagging summary page and is displayed to me when I click the link to one of deleted questions: .  For the sake of precision, flagger having less than 10K rep would see only upper screen shot - the one that lists question titles ("Call giRℒs blah blah &lt;phone number&gt;") - in their  page.
45408
If a user is question banned  and the , how can the user fix this on their own?  Until recently, advice has been to improve their questions, but since they can't see the questions on their question screen, they can't improve them:     Feature request: Allow a question banned user to see their own deleted questions, or warn them that deleting questions could lead to a question ban.
96355
While my code is compiling, I usually like to go through some reviewing and especially the late answers.  What I do see a lot in answers to old questions is the self-defense mechanism     ""   As if there is something fundamentally wrong with answering old questions. This leads me to two questions/thoughts:   Should we edit phrases like that out of the answer? (Given it's a good/valid answer to begin with, without any of the likely "old answer" problems. I realize the example linked to has its flaws.) Should we perhaps explicitly encourage answering old unanswered questions somewhere in the FAQ? (I'm unaware of any such recommendation, but might have read over it. Let me know if I did)
21862
I'm looking around for answers to my questions on several Stack Exchange sites and the good boy that I am I don't want to ask duplicate questions.  Often I find that there are other people who asked the same questions, sometimes years earlier, but still don't have an answer. I'd figure I could bump these back to top, but if I don't have enough rep for a edit (or comment), how would I do that?  Or, in that case, I should just post a 'newer' version of the same question?
118968
was originally asked August 9, and received answers. A month later, the OP  the question, invalidating the existing answers. I rolled it back, and left a comment to say that a new question should be opened, but the OP changed it back saying "There is no rule about it, so you can't edit my post."  There is also a bounty on this question, making things more interesting.  What are the guidelines on completely changing a question or rolling back changed questions? Was I out-of-line rolling back the question?  I have no desire to get into an edit war, so I'm not going to touch the question again. If a moderator wants to get involved, great.
73860
This is a follow-up from , where there is a discussion about how to handle highly voted, but closed questions.  There are a number of closed questions on Programmers (and I'm sure on other sites, too) that are really close to being good. However, in their present state, they aren't good - they are too subjective, too localized, or just not useful in their current state. However, they can be cleaned up and made into really good questions.  In the post I linked to, I not only picked out one of these questions from Programmers, but also outlined how I would make it better. It's definitely in the same spirit as the original question, but also far more useful. If I were to simply rewrite the original question, most (if not all) of the already provided answers would be invalid or just not make sense.  Currently, the only option for such a massive "reboot" of a question are for it to be reasked, either by someone else or the original asker. If the original asker fixes it, then it would invalidate answers and be up to the answerers to fix their answers or delete them. If the original asker reasks the question as a new question, they get double reputation, unless the original is deleted. If someone else asks the question in the improved manner, they get reputation for a question that isn't theirs, and the original asker gets rep for their "bad" question.  I think that diamond moderators should have the ability to reboot a question. That is, they edit the question and get edit credit, but all existing answers are removed and reputation gained for answers and the question is reset. The question is returned to the front page, like it was just asked. This could also be expanded to allow 10k+ users to vote for a reboot, proposing new wordings as well as a reopen.  Thoughts, problems?
89664
Scenario:   Assume you are a user suffering some type of being banned, where if you try to suggest an edit. You will not be able to do so, and instead you get a message like "You are temporarily banned from suggesting edits - please review your edit history." Navigate to anything similar to this:   Using the link "" you will arrive at a page containing (only) this message:     This post has been deleted - no more edits are allowed  Change 'reputation' to any other valid tag, eg 'new-user', and the same scenario can be repeated for that tag also (though its 'improve wiki tag' also varies of course).   Related feature requests:   appears to me as a way to prevent this scenario from happening.  Possible duplicate questions:  To avoid creating a duplicate question, I searched for . The search results do not contain any question titles that seem related to my question here.  I also think this issue is not a duplicate of "".  My Questions:   It appears to me that this message is at least misleading, if not wrong. No? Shouldn't it display a normal error message indicating that the user is not allowed to edit due to an account restriction? Why would it think that the post is deleted?
17990
Suppose you had a question, and you really want a good answer that would solve your problem, but noticed it was already asked by someone else. Now, a lot of answers had been posted and upvoted, and maybe one was accepted. However, none of the answers solved your problem. The system does not promote the question very much because it is not considered "unanswered", and a lot of users who would otherwise bother to give a correct answer will probably skip the question completely as there are already many highly-voted answers.  Now, what should you do in this case?  One idea is to ask a new, completely identical question, but now you're in control to decide when it is answered. But would that go against SE policy?
115810
I recently posted a question that quite promptly got a number of decent answers. One of those answers led me to a closely related but slightly different question. What's the best way to bring up that additional question? I could..   ask the new question in an "answer" to my original question (this is what I did, but it's kind of colder and, I suspect, less likely to be seen by people), edit my original question to include the second one, or post a new question.   Any thoughts?
30766
Possible Duplicate:          Given a question that is not clear at first, which satisfies the criterion for being "not a real question":      "It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot   be reasonably answered in its current form."   should that question be closed immediately, or should the OP get a chance to improve the quality of his question.  My modus operandi is this: When I encounter a question which is "not a real question", I respond via a comment - I might ask one or more counter-questions (about the issue), I might comment that I don't understand the question. So, I let the OP know that his question should be improved. I then give the OP say 15 minutes to respond (and in most cases the OP does respond). However, if the OP doesn't respond, then I consider voting for "not a real question".  Is this how SO should work?   I have witnessed in the past several questions for which I saw potential, being closed immediately, and I wonder if that is appropriate.   Edit: Of course, questions that are duplicates should be closed immediately, and off-topic questions should also be moved / closed immediately. In this question I am specifically referring to those questions which "have potential" (which could be corrected / improved)..
67685
I asked a question based on a wrong assumption. As it later turned out, my problem had nothing to do with what was assumed in the question. The answer to my question, however, is based on that wrong assumption. My question now would be what to do with that question? As it cannot be altered without rendering the answers useless and wrong, should it be deleted? It'm talking about this question:
29952
I've just answered .  After accepting the answer, the OP then changed his question to another problem - which I know I shouldn't have answered (I should have requested as new question) but I updated my answer anyway.  The OP has now edited his question to remove the essence of either the original or new problem, and instead has a statement saying that the problem has been fixed.  What is the correct thing to do here?  Roll the question back so it's in its original state? Roll it back to the "new problem" state? Leave it and let him continue to get downvoted and/or closed by people who didn't see the original question?