Timeline for Is it ok to ask about the correctness of preprints on crank-friendly topics?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 15:45 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.cstheory.stackexchange.com/ with https://cstheory.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Jun 19, 2014 at 16:10 | history | edited | Lev ReyzinMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
circulate --> circumvent
|
| Dec 10, 2012 at 15:46 | history | edited | KavehMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 5 characters in body
|
| Dec 10, 2012 at 15:41 | history | notice removed | KavehMod | ||
| S Dec 10, 2012 at 15:41 | history | notice added | KavehMod | Historical significance | |
| S Dec 10, 2012 at 15:41 | history | locked | KavehMod | ||
| Dec 10, 2012 at 15:39 | history | unlocked | KavehMod | ||
| Dec 10, 2012 at 15:37 | history | edited | KavehMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 30 characters in body
|
| Nov 21, 2012 at 18:29 | history | edited | KavehMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
adding a note one of the items that is being abused to prevent them from using it to circulate the general policy
|
| Nov 16, 2011 at 23:30 | history | notice removed | KavehMod | ||
| Nov 16, 2011 at 23:30 | history | notice added | KavehMod | Historical significance | |
| Nov 16, 2011 at 23:30 | history | locked | KavehMod | ||
| Dec 1, 2010 at 14:29 | history | edited | Kaveh | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
deleted 24 characters in body
|
| Dec 1, 2010 at 14:22 | history | edited | Kaveh | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 274 characters in body; added 11 characters in body; edited body
|
| Dec 1, 2010 at 14:09 | history | edited | Kaveh | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added two more examples, not sure if others agree with it so have separated them from the rest, added two lines to the summery; added 18 characters in body
|
| Nov 29, 2010 at 21:33 | history | edited | Jukka Suomela | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
...
|
| Nov 29, 2010 at 17:45 | history | edited | Suresh VenkatMod | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 535 characters in body
|
| Sep 8, 2010 at 20:13 | comment | added | Suresh Venkat Mod | but that's the kind of discussion this policy is trying to avoid. It's not the purpose of a Q&A site to foster discussion on soft matters like "credibility". Better to focus on technical questions. | |
| Sep 8, 2010 at 17:45 | comment | added | Sadeq Dousti | "why not read it yourself": reading the whole paper might not be practical. In fact, one may be interested in the credibility of the new results, but not in the technical details. Moreover, there might be people here who have read the paper before, and can comment on (or even judge) the credibility. | |
| Sep 8, 2010 at 16:31 | history | answered | Suresh VenkatMod | CC BY-SA 2.5 |