Return to Answer

For .iso to .img permission denied, you said "not sure why this one was being closed." But then you asked moderators to close all the questions! It's to avoid these sorts of mistakes and inconsistencies that the normal, slower 5-votes system exists. Even when a question that should be closed gets incorrect reviews, this can usually be corrected within the system. And of course you've done the right thing by bringing this to meta, so users with close votes can cast them as needed.

###http://askubuntu.com/review/close/210585 seems wrong, but is perhaps understandable.

###http://askubuntu.com/review/close/210502 was actually correct.

You said the edit to .iso to .img permission denied doesn't modify anything relevant to the question. But actually, it did.

This is a question about a problem creating an Ubuntu live USB that will boot on a Mac. The question did not originally specify what instructions were being followed, which made it unclear. The OP then expanded the question to include this information. That rendered the close vote obsolete (if it came before) or wrong (if it came after). At this point:

• The edit you say didn't modify anything relevant improved the display of the link whose presence was the reason the post was no longer unclear. The post was thus then even more clear. Furthermore, by adding the title of the linked post, the edit clarified that the problem was occurring when trying to create Ubuntu installation media. (All the %20s in the URL itself probably made this considerably less obvious before.)

  In other words, this edit was a direct extension of the previous edit, which brought the post even closer toward the goal of the previous edit. And the previous edit was what made the post no longer unclear and no longer a good candidate for closure as unclear.

###http://askubuntu.com/review/close/206035 wasn't as bad as it sounds from your description.

Presumably, http://askubuntu.com/questions/401436/why-am-i-unable-to-login-in-a-terminal-window had an "unclear" close vote, putting it in the queue. Assuming that is the case, I believe this is what happened next:

So in the case of that fourth review, it seems:

For .iso to .img permission denied, you said "not sure why this one was being closed." But then you asked moderators to close all the questions! It's to avoid these sorts of mistakes and inconsistencies that the normal, slower 5-votes system exists. Even when a question that should be closed gets incorrect reviews, this can usually be corrected within the system. And of course you've done the right thing by bringing this to meta, so users with close votes can cast them as needed.

###https://askubuntu.com/review/close/210585 seems wrong, but is perhaps understandable.

###https://askubuntu.com/review/close/210502 was actually correct.

You said the edit to .iso to .img permission denied doesn't modify anything relevant to the question. But actually, it did.

This is a question about a problem creating an Ubuntu live USB that will boot on a Mac. The question did not originally specify what instructions were being followed, which made it unclear. The OP then expanded the question to include this information. That rendered the close vote obsolete (if it came before) or wrong (if it came after). At this point:

• The edit you say didn't modify anything relevant improved the display of the link whose presence was the reason the post was no longer unclear. The post was thus then even more clear. Furthermore, by adding the title of the linked post, the edit clarified that the problem was occurring when trying to create Ubuntu installation media. (All the %20s in the URL itself probably made this considerably less obvious before.)

  In other words, this edit was a direct extension of the previous edit, which brought the post even closer toward the goal of the previous edit. And the previous edit was what made the post no longer unclear and no longer a good candidate for closure as unclear.

###https://askubuntu.com/review/close/206035 wasn't as bad as it sounds from your description.

Presumably, https://askubuntu.com/questions/401436/why-am-i-unable-to-login-in-a-terminal-window had an "unclear" close vote, putting it in the queue. Assuming that is the case, I believe this is what happened next:

So in the case of that fourth review, it seems:

###http://askubuntu.com/review/close/210502 is an excellent illustration of your point.

###https://askubuntu.com/review/close/210495 is an excellent illustration of your point.

This is a question about a problem creating an Ubuntu live USB that will boot on a Mac. The question did not originally specify what instructions were being followed, which made it unclear. The OP then expanded the question to include this information. That rendered the close vote obsolete (if it came before) or wrong (if it came after). At this point:

• The edit you say didn't modify anything relevant improved the display of the link whose presence was the reason the post was no longer unclear. The post was thus then even more clear. Furthermore, by adding the title of the linked post, the edit clarified that the problem was occurring when trying to create Ubuntu installation media. (All the %20s in the URL itself probably made this considerably less obvious than it was before.)

  In other words, this edit was a direct extension of the previous edit, which brought the post even closer toward the goal of the previous edit. And the previous edit was what made the post no longer unclear and no longer a good candidate for closure as unclear.

This is a question about a problem creating an Ubuntu live USB that will boot on a Mac. The question did not originally specify what instructions were being followed, which made it unclear. The OP then expanded the question to include this information. That rendered the close vote obsolete (if it came before) or wrong (if it came after). At this point:

• The edit you say didn't modify anything relevant improved the display of the link whose presence was the reason the post was no longer unclear. The post was thus then even more clear. Furthermore, by adding the title of the linked post, the edit clarified that the problem was occurring when trying to create Ubuntu installation media. (All the %20s in the URL itself probably made this considerably less obvious before.)

  In other words, this edit was a direct extension of the previous edit, which brought the post even closer toward the goal of the previous edit. And the previous edit was what made the post no longer unclear and no longer a good candidate for closure as unclear.