Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
If sufficiently many users flagged it as spam, it would disappear, I think. Not having seen the question, I can't possibly tell if that is a likely explanation. Our esteemed supermoderator also has the power to make questions disappear, but hopefully, he would then send you an email explaining why. You did provide a real email address when you registered, I presume? Even if you didn't make it public.
My guess is it was deleted and locked for inappropriate language. (Inappropriate language makes it look like you were trolling, even if you weren't. If you weren't, I suggest you look in the socialogy or epidemiology literature.)
Edit: For those who are interested, here is a transcription.
The large component of the fuck graph
Define a graph G to be the simple graph whose vertices are the people in the world such that two vertices are connected if an only if the two people have had sex together.
The graph G of course has many isolated vertices, and it has many components of size two. There are also many small components (of size 10 or smaller, say) among teenagers.
Graphs that describe social networks often admit small world phenomena, see for example Jon Kleinberg's article in the Proceedings of the ICM 2006. Does this mean that G has a large component where basically everybody (except those cases mentioned above) belongs to? If yes, what is the maximal distance between two people?
If not (i.e. the graph splits into many components due to age restrictions, geographic distances, etc.), what are typical sizes of the components? 100, 1000, 10000?
A rough summary of the comments is that some people felt the question is mathematical because it might be asking about a probabilistic model of G, while some people felt that the question is non-mathematical because it is asking about G. My sympathies lie with the latter; again, consult the sociology or epidemiology literature.
It is possible to rephrase this into a more mathematical question. For example, someone just told me about this nice paper of Erdos and Renyi which may be of relevance: http://www.renyi.hu/~p_erdos/1959-11.pdf (see question 2 on the first page)
Erdos-Renyi is probably not a very good model for your situation, though.
I voted against this question and flagged it as "spam". It may not have matched the "official definition" of spam, but that was the quickest way to get it removed from the site. I do not wish to see this kind of language on MO, especially in the question title. Even were it a reasonable question (which it wasn't), it could easily have been rephrased to use less offensive language.
Probably the OP is gone, but he should read the FAQ and everything will be explained.
I like the idea of being "very scientific". Does this mean one has to wear two lab coats, or two pairs of glasses?
You need at least one test tube...
@Andrew: doesn't flagging as "offensive, abusive, or hate speech" have the same effect as flagging as "spam"?
@Andrew: doesn't flagging as "offensive, abusive, or hate speech" have the same effect as flagging as "spam"?
Yes, from the point of view of the software automatically deleting the question (after 6 spam/offensive flags) or removing it from the home page (after 3). I think the distinction is entirely for the benefit of 10k+ rep users who can see spam/offensive flags.
1 to 10 of 10