Timeline for Adding "Non-mainstream physics" to the answer deletion/flag reasons
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 15:45 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ | |
| Mar 16, 2017 at 15:45 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ | |
| Jan 7, 2016 at 6:00 | history | edited | David ZMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | alter to match FAQ |
| Aug 12, 2014 at 13:54 | vote | accept | Jim | ||
| Aug 9, 2014 at 23:41 | comment | added | David Z Mod | @Jim I doubt the answers you're thinking of fit my description of asking us to critique the poster's pet theory. If they do, then yes, it was appropriate for them to be deleted, but for the reason that they are not answers, not for the reason that they involve non-mainstream physics. | |
| Aug 9, 2014 at 23:03 | comment | added | Jim | I can't offer examples because they've all been deleted | |
| Aug 9, 2014 at 23:02 | comment | added | Jim | "Clearly, this is only an issue for questions, not answers". Actually, the non-mainstream answers I had in mind exactly fit you description of pet-theories. I've seen several occasions where an old question will get an answer from a new user that is a long-winded explanation about how that question can easily be answered by their new theory about how black holes are really God's french toast and that everything anyone else says is uncreative minds failing to recognize the truth. | |
| Aug 9, 2014 at 22:38 | history | answered | David ZMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |