13:0513:05, 21 July 2022diffhist−3,217
Ideological bias on Wikipedia
Just my two cents. Removed the 2 end sentences of Conservapedia and Infogalactic. This is under the "claims of bias" against Wikipedia, not against conservapedia and infogalactic. Such information should be in their own separate articles regarding those encyclopedias. With the removed sentences it read almost like: "But they're biased too, so yeah!". Almost like it was trying to prove a point. Not good.Tag: Visual edit
17:3617:36, 27 December 2021diffhist+13
Star Wars in other media
→Disney acquisition and canon restructuring: The final part of this section seemed abrupt. I added the word "However" to indicate the discontinuity that has resulted over the years despite previous statements. In addition, the changes made by Clone Wars and Bad Batch are more than just "retcons". A retcon being a narrative device that adds new information to allow you to view something in a different light. These rather were outright contradictions to previous canon material.Tag: Visual edit
30 November 2021
15:2115:21, 30 November 2021diffhist−61
Parler
I have attempted to make the lead paragraph read a little more neutral. Before reverting, please see talk page under "Explicitly biased".Tags: RevertedVisual edit
20:1620:16, 3 August 2021diffhist−141
Pablo Hidalgo
Not sure where the heck that last sentence came from as it wasn’t even mentioned in the source. I edited to more accurately represent what he said in his interview.Tags: Mobile editMobile app editiOS app edit
14:2714:27, 9 July 2021diffhist+467
Ideological bias on Wikipedia
→Claims of bias: Considering that all of this information is over on the Larry Sanger page and the Criticism of Wikipedia page, the views of Larry Sanger should absolutely be included here. It is an extremely relevant claim of bias. His views probably should be expanded on but I have included only the latest criticism.Tag: Reverted
13:4613:46, 9 July 2021diffhist−248
Ideological bias on Wikipedia
→Conservapedia: The statement of others views of Conservapedia belongs on the Conservapedia page. Not here. In addition I took out the final two statements as I would prefer to have these quoted from the source itself. If anyone wants to add them back in feel free but please quote his feelings. See WP:ATTRIBUTEPOVTag: Reverted
8 July 2021
22:5722:57, 8 July 2021diffhist−14
Cabinet of the United States
The article first said the president was not part of the cabinet but then it infers here that he is included. I have corrected it so it only includes the vice president.
03:0803:08, 8 July 2021diffhist+848
Twitter
→Demographics: As per the previous reversions I've moved my contribution to the demographics section. If you guys think there is a better spot for it feel free to move it around. Admittedly this section could use a little more work. I did move some paragraphs around a bit so it's more chronological.
23:2723:27, 7 July 2021diffhist+727
Twitter
Undid revision 1032493347 by
Tbhotch (
talk). Possible vandalism by Tbhotch? Undid my contribution without any reasoning or opening a discussion. Contribution restored.Tags: UndoReverted
13:0513:05, 21 July 2022diffhist−3,217
Ideological bias on Wikipedia
Just my two cents. Removed the 2 end sentences of Conservapedia and Infogalactic. This is under the "claims of bias" against Wikipedia, not against conservapedia and infogalactic. Such information should be in their own separate articles regarding those encyclopedias. With the removed sentences it read almost like: "But they're biased too, so yeah!". Almost like it was trying to prove a point. Not good.Tag: Visual edit
17:3617:36, 27 December 2021diffhist+13
Star Wars in other media
→Disney acquisition and canon restructuring: The final part of this section seemed abrupt. I added the word "However" to indicate the discontinuity that has resulted over the years despite previous statements. In addition, the changes made by Clone Wars and Bad Batch are more than just "retcons". A retcon being a narrative device that adds new information to allow you to view something in a different light. These rather were outright contradictions to previous canon material.Tag: Visual edit
30 November 2021
15:2115:21, 30 November 2021diffhist−61
Parler
I have attempted to make the lead paragraph read a little more neutral. Before reverting, please see talk page under "Explicitly biased".Tags: RevertedVisual edit
20:1620:16, 3 August 2021diffhist−141
Pablo Hidalgo
Not sure where the heck that last sentence came from as it wasn’t even mentioned in the source. I edited to more accurately represent what he said in his interview.Tags: Mobile editMobile app editiOS app edit
14:2714:27, 9 July 2021diffhist+467
Ideological bias on Wikipedia
→Claims of bias: Considering that all of this information is over on the Larry Sanger page and the Criticism of Wikipedia page, the views of Larry Sanger should absolutely be included here. It is an extremely relevant claim of bias. His views probably should be expanded on but I have included only the latest criticism.Tag: Reverted
13:4613:46, 9 July 2021diffhist−248
Ideological bias on Wikipedia
→Conservapedia: The statement of others views of Conservapedia belongs on the Conservapedia page. Not here. In addition I took out the final two statements as I would prefer to have these quoted from the source itself. If anyone wants to add them back in feel free but please quote his feelings. See WP:ATTRIBUTEPOVTag: Reverted
8 July 2021
22:5722:57, 8 July 2021diffhist−14
Cabinet of the United States
The article first said the president was not part of the cabinet but then it infers here that he is included. I have corrected it so it only includes the vice president.
03:0803:08, 8 July 2021diffhist+848
Twitter
→Demographics: As per the previous reversions I've moved my contribution to the demographics section. If you guys think there is a better spot for it feel free to move it around. Admittedly this section could use a little more work. I did move some paragraphs around a bit so it's more chronological.
23:2723:27, 7 July 2021diffhist+727
Twitter
Undid revision 1032493347 by
Tbhotch (
talk). Possible vandalism by Tbhotch? Undid my contribution without any reasoning or opening a discussion. Contribution restored.Tags: UndoReverted