Timeline for "Duplicate" not a duplicate
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:40 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Feb 2, 2017 at 21:07 | answer | added | sammy gerbil | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jan 26, 2017 at 18:55 | comment | added | David Z Mod | I agree with what @ACuriousMind just said. There's nothing wrong with posting this question here. But in most cases, if you want to bring more attention to a reopen candidate, Physics Chat is the first place to go. | |
| Jan 26, 2017 at 16:05 | history | edited | WillO | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 33 characters in body
|
| Jan 26, 2017 at 16:03 | comment | added | ACuriousMind Mod | Well, it's a perfectly fine question for meta, but the usual procedure when you disagree with a closure is to vote to reopen and optionally leave a comment explaining why you did so. I was wondering if there's something exceptional about this case. | |
| Jan 26, 2017 at 16:00 | comment | added | WillO | @ACuriousMind: I've followed your implicit advice re the comment and the reopen vote. If you believe this meta post should go away, do feel free to delete it. | |
| Jan 26, 2017 at 15:57 | comment | added | WillO | @ACuriousMind: The main reason is that I didn't think of it. Also (I'm already not sure what I was thinking) this might seemed a little long for a comment, though I'm sure I could have pared it down. If your query is a polite way of saying that it would have been better for me to keep this off meta, I'm not sure you're wrong. | |
| Jan 26, 2017 at 15:53 | comment | added | ACuriousMind Mod | Any particular reason you decided to bring this to meta instead of leaving a comment and casting a reopen vote? | |
| Jan 26, 2017 at 15:46 | history | asked | WillO | CC BY-SA 3.0 |