@dtmland Hm. I've not noticed.

@Ramhound Out of the two, I would certainly prefer the version number - that is what appears in the Version field in system info. Also "Fall Update" doesn't make much sense for those of us in the Southern hemisphere - it's Spring right now! :P

Looks like someone already created and started using windows-10-v1511 - and that seems to be the new official versioning scheme from MS. So if we do end up keeping the split tags then that might be better than TH2..?

Also, just a note: generally "corruption" is a very strong word to use, and in most contexts would imply that someone is being dishonest for their own gain. It seems that you are not a native speaker, and I suspect you're referring to the automated bans being "broken", but calling it "corrupt" sounds like you are throwing accusations at someone.

Unfortunately, not many people really know how the automated bans system works, and the people who do know aren't sharing. <total guesswork follows> However, I suspect "positive contributions" is actually measured as rep level, and I vaguely recall this being mentioned in the past. Perhaps 500 and 1000 are thresholds that allow you more leniency.

I did write a userscript you can install to enable this functionality for yourself: meta.stackexchange.com/a/242232/187228 (I might make it lightbox instead if I ever get the time and will...)

@Ramhound > questions where a software recomendation would answer the question - how would you define that? As it is, potentially every non-hardware question falls under that category. If I write a program that answers some question, does that become a software-rec question? After all, now there's "a software recommendation [that] would answer the question".

@tinlyx It's impossible to accurately describe an entire site by just the name. That's what the on-topic and off-topic sections of the help centre and new-user tour are for. Again, tablets are a blurry area - especially iOS, which has more in common with phones than desktop computers. The other part is that the decision to allow some tablet questions wasn't really publicised, so some users will still VtC.

Have you tried clicking the submit button again? (Assuming you're still on the original page you posted from - I can't quite remember how SE captcha works).

That said - that applies more to the theory/conceptual questions. I would expect troubleshooting-style questions to have far more detail, including attempts, much like the SO example in this meta question.

As a somewhat off-topic side note: I've mentioned before, my opinion is that "showing effort", which is often translated to "this question is too basic" or "have you tried searching", is also a poor close reason - we should be trying to build up a good library of Q&A, even for basic questions as long as they are reasonably scoped. Heck, those comments are often followed by others who mention they arrived at that very page via a search engine.

@Ƭᴇcʜιᴇ007 In which case, it should be downvoted or closed as such. My point is there is no need to have a close reason specifically for questions that ask for a script, since they are effectively a different way of phrasing another type of question - the individual question obviously must be judged on its own merit. Additionally, the suggested change was just an example of how to rephrase the question - obviously the question itself would be expected to have further detail!

@CanadianLuke That would have to be considered on a case-by-case basis - unfortunately, once you add a standard close reason, it tends to be applied very broadly, often well beyond the originally intended scope.

"learn how to write the code themselves" is appropriate for SO, but not for SU. If it does come to a standard close reason, the wording would have to be very precise, considering how vague the line can be between a 'good' and 'bad' question. Rec questions are much more obvious, and more rarely useful.