No, this would go against the Stack Exchange Code of Conduct (also known as the "Be-Nice" policy).
To quote from it:
No subtle put-downs or unfriendly language.
No name-calling or personal attacks.
I would say this falls under both, so it definitely violates the policy.
Here's what I do. I try to be "objective" as in – would I vote to close if the answer was by someone else? but a little bit more critical with my own stuff. So,
If the new question is very clearly and unambiguously a duplicate, and if I feel that my answer is decent enough, I will vote to close.
If there new question is not an obvious duplicate ...
I think you're over-stressing about this. Closing a question requires a consensus of five different users (potentially down to three at some point in the future) that the question should be closed. It is extremely unlikely that you'll get five (or even, really, three) users with conflicts of interest on the same thread. As such, in addition to AFT's existing ...
I think I should point out that one of the canned reasons for declining a flag is
flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies, or an altogether wrong answer
You should vote wrong answers down. If this kind of nonsense is buried with net scores far into the negative range it simply doesn't matter if this guy is at all serious because no ...
If someone is advertising a non-mainstream theory with their posts, flag it with a custom message. While it is not the job of moderators to sift correct from wrong, we do indeed delete material that advertises pet theories as per our faq.
About the "line of thought" answer: It doesn't look like trolling to me, but it seems deletable (or converted to a ...
Absolutely, it's a good idea to refer to previous questions (yours or other people's) when doing so is useful. But don't just use the question title; you should include a link to it. If you include just the URL of the question, the SE software will automatically convert the link to display the question title, e.g. if I write
There is a policy (of sorts), namely the one from the help center. (See also this.) For convenience, I'll repeat (quote) the main points from those pages:
Rudeness and belittling language are not okay.
Be welcoming, be patient, and assume good intentions.
Don't be a jerk.
I don't think there's really a need to make an additional policy on this. But ...
A certain population of this site has taken to writing
"not mainstream physics"
as if those words were a magic wand that entitles the wielder to demand actions from the moderator and to ignore the (already very loose) civility requirements on Physics.SE.
It is true that kooks, cranks, wannabes and other species of attention seekers do try to use Physics....
If you really want to go on edit spree, you could reduce disruption by editing recent posts alongside with your own. If you commit yourself to improve 2-3 recent posts before you touch another post of your own, the disruption will be much less harmful.
It would be even better if you take longer breaks from editing, either by doing something outside the site,...
I think the answer really boils down to how you answer the following question:
Do the changes you want to make improve the readability or accuracy of the post, or is it just superficial changes?
If it's the latter, don't worry about editing it then because no one will care/notice ever.1 If it's the former, then you are probably fine to make the edits, ...
Sure, why not?*
* We can't really give you clear advice on yes or no without seeing the exact wording of the question in mind. But in most cases, it's fine. Imagine "If pV = nRT, then what happens in a nozzle flow" can easily lead to "Why does pV = nRT anyway?"
Why are you so concerned with the deletion of comments?
Comments are deleted at will. They are fifth class citizens. Disposable. Nuke-able. Here today, gone tomorrow!
There is no FSM-given right of any comment to live, at a fundamental level. Comments are only meant for discussing a post and how to improve it, and are typically deleted after they are ...