I think it was considered too localized because the problem was a missing join condition.
The scope of the site states
dba.se is for those needing expert answers to advanced database-related questions [...]
Doing a Cartesian product instead of an inner join is hardly a topic that I would call advanced. In fact, it is more a beginners' mistake (or ...
I was not one of the reviewers or close voters, but a contributory factor may have been the first comment (now deleted):
A vote to close as too localized around the same time initiated a Close Review process. Privileged users taking part in that review had the following options:
Vote to leave the question open; (three needed)
Edit the question to improve ...
The "close reason" text:
Too localized - this could be because your code has a typo, basic error, or is not relevant to most of our audience.
I've italicized the part I feel is relevant to your question. Please don't take this personally; I think you did a fantastic job of providing a lot of detail, even going so far as to provide packet data, which ...
All my fault. I missed:
I would accept that answer if it didn't work perfectly with another
server of the same version already
... so you can blame me :-)
That part completely changed the question, and I skimmed over it.
I enjoy admitting being wrong, so it's all good.
My suggestion would be to add information currently only found in comments into the body of the question, then flag out-of-date comments as obsolete. At the moment, you are asking people (including reopen reviewers) to read ten fairly lengthy comments as well as the question, just to understand it.
I would also encourage you to remove the meta content from ...
The question is pretty basic - essentially it is asking how to write a simple join.
Our on-topic help centre page says:
but, dba.se is not the right place to ask questions about...
Client-side programming - ask on Stack Overflow
Basic SQL - ask on Stack Overflow
Career advice, including salary or résumé - try Patrick McKenzie's Don't call ...
Clear the migration history and let the community decide
A moderator can prevent the Q & A from being auto-deleted by clearing the migration history. This would make it appear as if the migration never happened; in other words, a regular question asked directly on this site in the first place.
The question would be unlocked but still closed, and no ...
As I write this, the question has three of the five reopen votes needed to reopen. I don't personally feel strongly enough about it to cast my own 'vote'.
It also has two of the three delete votes needed for deletion. I do feel strongly enough about keeping the question and it's answer around (even if closed) to reverse that deletion should it occur.
Not all closures will fall precisely into the exact interpretation of the wording jammed into generic close reason text. No matter how much we fiddle with that text, someone is not going to be happy that it didn't 100% accurately reflect the closure reason behind their question.
In this case, I'm not sure there's a more accurate close reason for "give me ...
Question #1 - while it is certainly not strictly about Java, the question is framed in the sense of a programming question, which is on-topic for StackOverflow.com, and since it doesn't reference or require any advanced database-related coding nor any database-maintenance or management issue, it is off-topic for dba.se. From the on-topic help page for dba....
The question you've asked is not a 'bad question', it just isn't a good fit for the Q&A format here on Stack Exchange — note this from the help centre (linked in the close banner on your question):
if your question … has many valid answers (but no way to determine which - if any - are correct), then it is probably too broad for our format.
There are ...
For the opposition: Don't delete it.
People are going to Do Dumb Things when they can. When they can't Do Dumb Things they want to do, they're going to try and find a workaround. Smart People™️ choosing to not talk about the Dumb Thing doesn't remove the incentive for N00bz™️ to do the Dumb Thing.
There's already precedent on this network for deleting ...
The way the question was originally written, I voted to close as too localized because "it is not relevant to most of our audience". That doesn't mean it isn't an interesting or good question in general, by the way.
After the edit, my view was that the question is now just about on-topic, so I voted to reopen. The question has three of five required reopen ...
Assuming the 'too trivial' premise is correct (if it is not, please disconsider), perhaps we could improve the close reason to:
"Too localized - this could be because your code has a typo, basic error, or it is not relevant to most of our audience, or is too trivial. Consider revising your question so that it appeals to a broader audience. As it ...
First question: would be on-topic for DBA if it wasn't also about how to interface this query to the Java code. Therefore I felt it was a better fit for SO.
Second question: I have no idea why I voted to close that (before I had my coffee?) and I have retracted my vote.
Third question: It's about creating deployment scripts in Visual Studio. There have got ...
I voted to close the individual questions because of ....
It contains references to Java and in the statement it is asking for the syntax of a Java/INSERT statement with specific variables:
The INSERT would be on-topic, if it weren't too basic
The Java/String concatenation is off-topic
I didn't vote on that question as far as I can tell from my ...
This was a network-wide bug that affected multiple badges; the code tried to award them, and did everything (including notification) except actually award the badge. It was fixed within a short time, allowing the badge to be awarded, which meant it finally stopped trying to do it. Sorry, this was my fault - apologies for any inconvenience.
Andriy M: I think you've already done what little you could do: this looks very much like a bug and you've reported it.
ypercubeᵀᴹ: You did get the badge, about 50 minutes after posting this question (a few minutes after midday, at 12:06).
marcello miorelli (OP): The flow of messages has stopped. I am not sure exactly when but it looks like ...
If it's still basically the same or closely related question, by all means edit it to improve it.
If it has been closed, and you edit it, it goes in a review queue and will be reopened if it's become on-topic or reached the necessary standard.
If you have a new question, simply ask it by clicking the "Ask Question" button at the top right of any page on the site.
Editing a question should only be used to refine the question or to add details.
This doesn't seem to be an "example of scenarios we as DBAs work hard to prevent". It is most likely an example of a person having not a slightest idea what he/she is doing on a local workstation; there is no indication of "any remote access to servers" in that question.
So no, the question doesn't seem to be worth saving.
I think he's wrong, but Paul White said it very clearly: the question is too basic... [for some]. I think this adds tremendous confusion and dissuades people from using this site. As a member of the community that feels passionately and differently on this specific issue, I've also voted to reopen your question.
All SQL questions should be welcome here. "...
I was one of the vote-to-closers but if I remember correctly the review queue was fairly big at the time, which may be a reason I didn't add a comment.
I admit I may have been a bit trigger-happy voting to close this as too localized, mainly because it's about beta software and the documentation or features might not be up to date yet. I believe you should ...
There was a difference of opinion on this one:
The initial close vote process had two "Leave Open" dissenters.
The reopen process had two "Leave Closed" dissenters.
The question has two upvotes and no downvotes.
I added the fifth Reopen vote, so the question is now reopened to answers.