Top edits to an page
All edits made to a page by one user, in chronological order.
| Page | Talk:Fox News controversies (Log · Page History) |
| User | FeloniousMonk (Edit Counter· Top Edits) |
| Total edits | 75 |
| Minor edits | 0 (0%) |
| (Semi-)automated edits | 0 (0%) |
| Reverted edits | 0 (0%) |
| atbe1 | 1.3 |
| Added (bytes)2 | 30,416 |
| Deleted (bytes) | -87,483 |
Minor edits
·
0 (0%)
Major edits
·
75 (100%)
(Semi-)automated edits
·
0 (0%)
Manual edits
·
75 (100%)
Reverted edits
·
0 (0%)
Unreverted edits
·
75 (100%)
1 Average time between edits (days)
2 Added text is any positive addition that wasn't reverted (approximate)
| Date | Links | Size | Edit summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2006-08-24 15:19 | Diff · History | 960 | →Expressen again: no, it is original research |
| 2006-08-22 23:33 | Diff · History | 38 | →Expressen again: grmmr |
| 2006-08-22 23:33 | Diff · History | 121 | →Expressen again: BTW, his comment is about FOX News, not Rosengård |
| 2006-08-22 23:32 | Diff · History | 277 | →Expressen again: so you *are* debunking his criticism then... |
| 2006-08-22 23:24 | Diff · History | 226 | →Expressen again: The "Other criticisms" section is for statements of critics, not clarifying, supporting or debunking their statements |
| 2006-07-19 02:00 | Diff · History | 151 | →Example: reasonable compromise |
| 2006-07-18 23:44 | Diff · History | -3 | →Example: fmt |
| 2006-07-18 23:42 | Diff · History | 966 | →Example: if you want to expand coverage of Ailes' statements do it in different section |
| 2006-07-18 19:05 | Diff · History | 111 | →Ailes: clarify |
| 2006-07-18 18:51 | Diff · History | -2 | →Ailes: grmmr |
| 2006-07-18 18:50 | Diff · History | 5 | →Ailes: grmmr |
| 2006-07-18 18:50 | Diff · History | 270 | →Ailes: it co-opts a section of the article called 'Criticism' section to favor FOX's CEO's rebutal of criticism |
| 2006-07-18 18:47 | Diff · History | 560 | →Ailes: I'll continue to insist that this article follow the project's rules and conventions, as well as the contributors here |
| 2006-07-12 23:55 | Diff · History | 10 | →Title change?: fmt |
| 2006-07-12 23:54 | Diff · History | 194 | →Title change?: clarify |
| 2006-07-12 23:52 | Diff · History | 167 | →Title change?: I'm game |
| 2006-07-09 18:42 | Diff · History | 1,131 | →PIPA poll criticism: Present a cite for the accutual PIPA clarification or accept that reference to it needs to be attributed |
| 2006-07-09 15:59 | Diff · History | 384 | →PIPA poll criticism: Until the full clarification from PIPA is found, the 'clarification' refered to needs to be attributed to those quoting it. |
| 2006-07-08 21:37 | Diff · History | 1,284 | Without a supporting cite to PIPA's actual clarification, the best we can say is that Taranto claims they have |
| 2006-07-08 16:48 | Diff · History | 762 | →PIPA poll criticism: We can't spoonfeed readers, but we can't assume they recoginize bias. |
| 2006-07-08 15:13 | Diff · History | 118 | →PIPA poll criticism: not vandalism |
| 2006-07-08 02:35 | Diff · History | 131 | →PIPA poll criticism: stop trolling and disrupting this article |
| 2006-07-07 23:02 | Diff · History | 4 | →PIPA poll criticism: grmmr |
| 2006-07-07 23:01 | Diff · History | 12 | →PIPA poll criticism: clarify |
| 2006-07-07 22:52 | Diff · History | 153 | →PIPA poll criticism: Taranto is no less a partisan critic of the poll than Coulter or O'Reilly |
| 2006-07-07 22:26 | Diff · History | 810 | →PIPA poll criticism: Writing from a particular POV is called partisan punditry where I come from, not that I expect you to admit that... |
| 2006-07-07 22:02 | Diff · History | -1 | →PIPA poll criticism: fmt |
| 2006-07-07 22:02 | Diff · History | 759 | →PIPA poll criticism: He's clearly partisan no matter how you slice it, read his article: James Taranto |
| 2006-07-07 21:50 | Diff · History | 788 | →PIPA poll criticism: James Taranto is a partisan |
| 2006-07-07 20:11 | Diff · History | 294 | →PIPA poll criticism: What part of "Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, wikis or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources." don't you understand? |
| 2006-07-07 17:23 | Diff · History | 777 | →PIPA poll criticism: Reply to Korny and why I rv'd Isarig |
| 2006-07-07 05:20 | Diff · History | 766 | →Archives: + PIPA poll criticism |
| 2006-07-07 01:39 | Diff · History | 18 | + controversial template |
| 2006-07-07 01:38 | Diff · History | -87,254 | Archiving discussions |
| 2006-07-07 01:35 | Diff · History | 180 | →an idea: readding additional comment from Rondurbar |
| 2006-07-07 01:33 | Diff · History | 1,329 | rv unexplained editting of what appears to be someone else's comments. If these are one and the same editor then say so and make your new suggestion as an additional comment, not overwriting old one |
| 2006-07-05 19:27 | Diff · History | 99 | →Include the Expressen article: keep |
| 2006-07-05 15:23 | Diff · History | 264 | →Swedish journalism and what this article ''should'' be: One |
| 2006-07-05 15:12 | Diff · History | 186 | →Swedish journalism and what this article ''should'' be: No |
| 2006-07-01 19:09 | Diff · History | 215 | →Swedish journalism and what this article ''should'' be: OK, so it's 3 against 3. That's still certainly not consensus |
| 2006-07-01 14:51 | Diff · History | 625 | →Swedish journalism and what this article ''should'' be: How you can claim four to three against is consensus for your opinion is beyond me |
| 2006-07-01 05:07 | Diff · History | 771 | →Swedish journalism and what this article ''should'' be: WP:POINT |
| 2006-07-01 02:23 | Diff · History | 1 | →Swedish journalism and what this article ''should'' be: sp |
| 2006-07-01 02:21 | Diff · History | 504 | →Swedish journalism and what this article ''should'' be: ou really need to stop putting words in my mouth |
| 2006-07-01 01:54 | Diff · History | 403 | →Swedish journalism and what this article ''should'' be: There's been zero consensus that it should be removed it from the article |
| 2006-06-29 16:19 | Diff · History | 126 | →non-Notable blogger: Exactly. I'm getting really tired of his dishonesty |
| 2006-06-29 01:44 | Diff · History | 289 | →non-Notable blogger: it provides insight into how Fox News is viewed by that segment |
| 2006-06-29 01:39 | Diff · History | 97 | →non-Notable blogger: Don't put words in my mouth |
| 2006-06-29 01:38 | Diff · History | 2 | →non-Notable blogger: grmmr |
| 2006-06-29 01:37 | Diff · History | 192 | →non-Notable blogger: so a journalist who writes commentary in the culture section of a newpaper isn't a culture commentator? |
| 2006-06-29 01:33 | Diff · History | 0 | →non-Notable blogger: FMT Don't split other's comments with your replies, it's very bad form |
| 2006-06-28 23:21 | Diff · History | 144 | →non-Notable blogger: Shame on us |
| 2006-06-28 23:08 | Diff · History | 0 | →non-Notable blogger: sp |
| 2006-06-28 23:08 | Diff · History | 266 | →non-Notable blogger: True. It's not like there's a shortage of legitimate and significant criticisms of Fox News in the world |
| 2006-06-28 23:06 | Diff · History | 1,797 | →non-Notable blogger: Care to explain to us why you originally chacterized the article as a blog? |
| 2006-06-28 22:32 | Diff · History | 6 | →non-Notable blogger: fmt |
| 2006-06-28 21:26 | Diff · History | 1,068 | →non-Notable blogger: his article is a op-ed column in the "Kultur" section, not a blog post, check the page |
| 2006-06-28 21:11 | Diff · History | 192 | →Kianzad: the evidence remains and others have found it compelling |
| 2006-06-28 21:09 | Diff · History | 273 | →Kianzad: WP:RS doesn't say "professional reporter" it says "professional journalist" |
| 2006-06-28 18:58 | Diff · History | 420 | →non-Notable blogger: The difference being Professor Juan Cole's blog was his personal blog and self-published. Again, comparing apples to oranges |
| 2006-06-28 18:49 | Diff · History | -223 | →Kianzad: fmt |
| 2006-06-28 18:48 | Diff · History | 1,587 | →Kianzad: He seems to get around for being "''an occasional blog contributor, of no particular significance''" as you claim |
| 2006-06-28 18:09 | Diff · History | 160 | →non-Notable blogger: The professor was not a regularly published journalist? |
| 2006-06-28 18:08 | Diff · History | 155 | →Kianzad: the blog belongs to Expressen and Kianzad is one of several contributors to it |
| 2006-06-28 18:06 | Diff · History | 359 | →Sweedish Newspaper Expressen: standard for notability |
| 2006-06-28 16:23 | Diff · History | 909 | →Sweedish Newspaper Expressen: Let's stick to the facts, not spin |
| 2006-06-28 03:37 | Diff · History | 2,570 | →Sweedish Newspaper Expressen: only the willfully obtuse or the most persistent of the POV-challenged can continue to insist that the requirements of WP:RS have not been met |
| 2006-06-27 21:01 | Diff · History | 244 | →Sweedish Newspaper Expressen: another cite |
| 2006-06-27 20:54 | Diff · History | 534 | →Sweedish Newspaper Expressen: The content fully meets the standards of WP:RS |
| 2006-06-27 20:06 | Diff · History | 321 | →PIPA poll and "partisan criticism": Shouldn't assume lay readers understand the difference |
| 2006-06-27 19:04 | Diff · History | 692 | →Sweedish Newspaper Expressen: I've restored it, what the policy actually says, and a caution about misquoting policy |
| 2006-06-27 18:54 | Diff · History | 132 | →Sweedish Newspaper Expressen: Not all blogs are proscibed by WP:RS |
| 2006-06-27 18:52 | Diff · History | 320 | →PIPA poll and "partisan criticism": All you have to do is name one criticism of the PIPA polls that isn't partisan |
| 2006-06-27 17:49 | Diff · History | 499 | →PIPA poll and "partisan criticism": If you assert that there is other non-partisan criticism, then the burden is you to prove that |
| 2006-05-15 16:33 | Diff · History | 238 | →NPOV CHALLANGE: Any specific issues you'd like to discuss? |
All times are in UTC.