14 May 2024
- 20:1620:16, 14 May 2024 diff hist +6 Talk:Project 2025 →A "List of Proposals" would be beneficial to the reader.
- 20:1520:15, 14 May 2024 diff hist +643 Talk:Project 2025 →A "List of Proposals" would be beneficial to the reader.: Reply Tag: Reply
- 20:0920:09, 14 May 2024 diff hist +154 Talk:Project 2025 →Mandate for Leadership link: Reply Tag: Reply
7 May 2024
- 01:3201:32, 7 May 2024 diff hist +258 Talk:Project 2025 →A "List of Proposals" would be beneficial to the reader.: Reply Tag: Reply
8 April 2024
- 23:0823:08, 8 April 2024 diff hist +805 Talk:Project 2025 →A "List of Proposals" would be beneficial to the reader.: new section Tag: New topic
- 21:2521:25, 8 April 2024 diff hist −1 Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard →Open solicitation for partisan collusion
- 21:2421:24, 8 April 2024 diff hist +95 Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard →Open solicitation for partisan collusion
- 21:2421:24, 8 April 2024 diff hist +215 Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard →Open solicitation for partisan collusion: Reply Tag: Reply
- 21:0721:07, 8 April 2024 diff hist +87 Talk:Project 2025 →Conspiracy theory
- 21:0421:04, 8 April 2024 diff hist +679 Talk:Project 2025 →Conspiracy theory: Reply Tag: Reply
- 21:0021:00, 8 April 2024 diff hist +337 Talk:Project 2025 →Conspiracy theory: Reply Tag: Reply
- 20:5720:57, 8 April 2024 diff hist +213 User talk:Robert Sacomeno →WP has rules
- 20:5420:54, 8 April 2024 diff hist −25 Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard →Open solicitation for partisan collusion on an article's content.
- 20:5220:52, 8 April 2024 diff hist +450 Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard →Open solicitation for partisan collusion on an article's content.: new section Tag: New topic
- 20:4620:46, 8 April 2024 diff hist −513 Talk:Project 2025 Open solicitation for partisan collusion on article content. This is a severe NPOV violation. Tag: Manual revert
- 20:4520:45, 8 April 2024 diff hist +118 User talk:Robert Sacomeno →WP has rules
- 20:4520:45, 8 April 2024 diff hist +344 N User talk:Robert Sacomeno ←Created page with '=WP has rules= When you made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Project_2025&diff=prev&oldid=1217757993 this message] on Project 2025 article talk page, you showed a severe willingness to violate the WP:NPOV rule. In other words, overt partisan strategizing is one of the worst offenses an editor could make on Wikipedia.'
5 April 2024
- 23:3523:35, 5 April 2024 diff hist +604 Talk:Project 2025 →Regarding attribution for the Insurrection Act claim and other instances of third-party sources as only source: Reply Tag: Reply
- 23:2823:28, 5 April 2024 diff hist +210 Talk:Project 2025 →Delete this: Reply Tag: Reply
- 23:2723:27, 5 April 2024 diff hist +2,814 Talk:Project 2025 →Delete this: Reply Tag: Reply
12 March 2024
- 17:2417:24, 12 March 2024 diff hist +14 Talk:Candida hypersensitivity →Stephen Barrett and Steven Novella cites require attribution
- 17:2317:23, 12 March 2024 diff hist +50 Talk:Candida hypersensitivity →Stephen Barrett and Steven Novella cites require attribution
- 17:2217:22, 12 March 2024 diff hist +1,607 Talk:Candida hypersensitivity →Stephen Barrett and Steven Novella cites require attribution: Reply Tag: Reply
7 March 2024
- 19:2019:20, 7 March 2024 diff hist +71 Talk:Candida hypersensitivity →Stephen Barrett and Steven Novella cites require attribution
- 19:1919:19, 7 March 2024 diff hist +1,959 Talk:Candida hypersensitivity →Can previous editors please explain this weird usage of some of the citations?: new section Tag: New topic
- 19:0619:06, 7 March 2024 diff hist +813 Talk:Candida hypersensitivity →Stephen Barrett and Steven Novella cites require attribution: new section Tag: New topic
- 18:2918:29, 7 March 2024 diff hist +77 User talk:76.178.169.118 No edit summary current
- 18:2618:26, 7 March 2024 diff hist +207 User talk:76.178.169.118 No edit summary
- 18:2118:21, 7 March 2024 diff hist +213 User talk:76.178.169.118 No edit summary
- 17:4817:48, 7 March 2024 diff hist +104 User talk:ScienceFlyer →Quackwatch as a source on AAEM
- 17:4617:46, 7 March 2024 diff hist +103 User talk:ScienceFlyer →Quackwatch as a source on AAEM
- 17:4317:43, 7 March 2024 diff hist +286 User talk:ScienceFlyer →Quackwatch as a source on AAEM: Reply Tag: Reply
- 17:4217:42, 7 March 2024 diff hist +119 User talk:ScienceFlyer →Quackwatch as a source on AAEM
- 17:4117:41, 7 March 2024 diff hist +948 American Academy of Environmental Medicine Undid revision 1212265969 by ScienceFlyer (talk) Your changes have no consensus. Addition of QW has no consensus since the beginning. There's no deadline on WP. You ignore attempts at discussion with you, only revert. Shall we go to third opinion or something else? QW itself has had numerous RfCs, and the edits I make are in keeping with those. Tags: Undo Reverted
6 March 2024
- 22:0622:06, 6 March 2024 diff hist +948 American Academy of Environmental Medicine Quackwatch is to be evaluated case-by-case, and this particular use has been criticized many times in talk and in edit history. I have taken the guideline suggestion of "in-line" attribution, recognizing that Barrett's opinion is the driving force behind this statement. I also put back in the cited sentence that AAEM is CME accredited, which was removed recently without any discussion. I also removed the sentence about regulatory actions against 29 doctors, added at the same time, undue and pov. Tag: Reverted
29 February 2024
- 21:1721:17, 29 February 2024 diff hist +3,939 User talk:ScienceFlyer No edit summary
28 February 2024
- 22:4522:45, 28 February 2024 diff hist −411 American Academy of Environmental Medicine No, it really isn't fine. Quackwatch is not a peer review, it is not a medical board, it is not a governing body, and so on. It is the opinion of one person, and one who has many times provided unreliable information on some topics, "appeals to authority" not withstanding. Further, the want for WP editors to disallow QW is plethora, as evidenced by the "what links here" page of that article. Discuss in talk page if you want consensus for including that information, and bring better sources. Tag: Reverted
20 December 2023
- 23:3523:35, 20 December 2023 diff hist +176 Talk:Luke Elliott Sommer →Elliott's story was used against his father, Luke, in a political smear campaign.: Reply Tag: Reply
- 23:3323:33, 20 December 2023 diff hist −4 American Academy of Environmental Medicine dead link, page was probably deleted or never existed. Tag: Reverted
- 23:3223:32, 20 December 2023 diff hist −462 American Academy of Environmental Medicine see talk page for me. Quackwatch is not suitable for medrs. It is not a peer reviewed group, but it is the opinion of only one person. Further, that person is a psychiatrist, which puts his opinion that might qualify as medrs outside of the domain of this article's topic. Tags: Reverted references removed
- 23:2823:28, 20 December 2023 diff hist +567 Talk:American Academy of Environmental Medicine →Citing quackwatch? Not MEDRS: Reply Tag: Reply
1 November 2023
- 20:4720:47, 1 November 2023 diff hist −762 User talk:76.178.169.118 ←Blanked the page Tags: Blanking Manual revert
- 20:4120:41, 1 November 2023 diff hist +806 Talk:Luke Elliott Sommer →Elliott's story was used against his father, Luke, in a political smear campaign.: new section Tag: New topic
12 October 2023
- 19:2719:27, 12 October 2023 diff hist +400 Talk:The Daily Beast →Left-wing bias: Reply Tag: Reply
2 October 2023
- 20:0220:02, 2 October 2023 diff hist +546 Talk:Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants →New case, 2023. Very similar.: new section Tag: New topic
- 19:5619:56, 2 October 2023 diff hist −27 Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants citation was used later in article to make this point.
19 August 2023
- 00:1100:11, 19 August 2023 diff hist +290 Talk:Dinosaur King →Anyone find a relation to Dinosaurs Attack?: new section Tags: Reverted New topic
16 August 2023
- 19:2319:23, 16 August 2023 diff hist +265 Talk:Disney v. DeSantis →WP is not news: new section Tag: New topic
12 May 2023
 | This is the contributions page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address. |