6 October 2020

• 18:2418:24, 6 October 2020 diff hist −13 John de Lancie →Other television roles: removed opinion
• 18:2018:20, 6 October 2020 diff hist −12 John de Lancie Removed off-topic uncited assertion about what people know. Split sentence.

5 October 2020

• 18:3218:32, 5 October 2020 diff hist −73 Weeble Digression off topic unsuited for lede

2 October 2020

• 03:4003:40, 2 October 2020 diff hist −41 Ridiculousness (TV series) →Production: Split up and trimmed single-long-sentence paragraph where someone was trying to say everything all at once. It's also uncited and might be removable.

1 October 2020

• 20:5420:54, 1 October 2020 diff hist −69 Burroughs MCP clarified pronouns, split single-sentence paragraph, removed distracting digression

29 September 2020

• 22:1722:17, 29 September 2020 diff hist −149 Barracuda Networks →Products: De-promotionalized the caption.

27 September 2020

• 20:4520:45, 27 September 2020 diff hist +97 Romantic chess Added "dubious". This contradicts the opening assertion that the era began in the 15th century. Whole paragraph is WP:OR and removable w/o cites and w/o clarifying the contradiction.
• 20:3920:39, 27 September 2020 diff hist +94 Romantic chess Dubious. Uncited. This contradicts the opening assertion that the era began in the 15th century.
• 19:2319:23, 27 September 2020 diff hist +79 Romantic chess 10,000 openings? I'm guessing it's chess jargon, but to a lay reader it looks more like one times ten to the forth power, or even a typo.

26 September 2020

• 23:4423:44, 26 September 2020 diff hist +5 Coelacanth "Recent" by itself is always vague, and almost never includable in Wikipedia. "More recent" means clearly "coming after the previous" which is specifies a defined period of time. Being uncreative, I can't think of another way to de-vague-ify. If this method of de-vague-ification is awkward or unsatisfactory, you can help by inventing another (instead of just re-vague-ifying it). :-) .

17 September 2020

• 22:2322:23, 17 September 2020 diff hist +5 Coelacanth less vague/weaselly Tag: Reverted

16 September 2020

• 23:5823:58, 16 September 2020 diff hist −140 Learned helplessness →Foundation of research and theory: Removed uncited opinion.

12 September 2020

• 04:1604:16, 12 September 2020 diff hist −60 Cohoes Falls removed editorializing ("neglected")

7 September 2020

• 07:2207:22, 7 September 2020 diff hist −105 Cohoes Falls Reworded editorializing (such as laments regarding there "still" being "so much" diversion).

5 September 2020

• 00:0200:02, 5 September 2020 diff hist +11 The Caves of Steel →Plot introduction: "Agoraphobia" (as it's defined in the link) was not very applicable or accurate to describe their fear. Reworded to describe directly.

3 September 2020

• 07:5507:55, 3 September 2020 diff hist +12 Francesco Sartori →Works: What people know or "best know" is off topic. Uncited (for 3 years), and generally uncitable. Clarified pronouns.
• 01:2801:28, 3 September 2020 diff hist −202 Cartman Gets an Anal Probe This is a primary source, which cannot establish the notability needed for inclusion. One-review-being-critical it is, but what's needed is a source that reports on people (widely or widely enough) being critical of it on that point.

2 September 2020

• 15:3015:30, 2 September 2020 diff hist −28 Laser lighting display →Static beams: de-weaselized

27 August 2020

• 16:1116:11, 27 August 2020 diff hist −150 Call to Glory Uncited. Notability not established (via secondary source). Not summarized from material in main text. Detail not suited for summary in lede even if it had been part the main text. Merged with next paragraph.
• 16:0416:04, 27 August 2020 diff hist −730 Call to Glory WP:OR. Source doesn't mention any connection to the TV show. Primary sources don't establish notability. Notability is only asserted by implication in the text (by the editor), making it WP:OR (or at least not includible for lack of evidence of notability or materiality). Tag: references removed
• 03:0503:05, 27 August 2020 diff hist −11 Bobby Farrell →Later years, death, and legacy: Extraneous. In WP, the "secondary source" requirement means all purports are reports ! :-) .

26 August 2020

• 03:0003:00, 26 August 2020 diff hist −2 Ponte Morandi Split single sentence paragraph. Removed editorializing ("not only X, but also Y").

22 August 2020

• 00:3200:32, 22 August 2020 diff hist −16 Fokker D.VII →Powerplants: WP:weasel
• 00:3000:30, 22 August 2020 diff hist +11 Fokker D.VII →Powerplants: Moved off topic explanation about sources and their errors out of the main text and into an inline note.

16 August 2020

• 02:2202:22, 16 August 2020 diff hist −43 Anthropocentrism Removed box because the definition of "discrimination" in the link says its between groups of people, not a discrimination between people and non-people, which this article is about. The article shouldn't p=be , so it is not apt to be part od such a "series". Also, see talk page about how putting the box here sends a big POV message --

15 August 2020

• 03:0403:04, 15 August 2020 diff hist −1 Talk:Anthropocentrism →"Part of a series on Discrimination" looks like POV?: typo
• 02:5702:57, 15 August 2020 diff hist +1,308 Talk:Anthropocentrism →"Part of a series on Discrimination" looks like POV?: new section

14 August 2020

• 22:3922:39, 14 August 2020 diff hist −29 Chyme Removed "human centric" tag. It's just not "anthropocentric" as defined in the "human-centric" link. Being *about* human beings doesn't make something anthropocentric. But, I also "clarified" anyway that we're talking about a person's stomach, although it was already obvious. Sorry for the snark, and I know it's uncivil of me, but fretting about being "human centric" as if it's bad just reeks of a load of wacky POV, i.e it's ridiculous. Why there's a tag for it I can't figure out.
• 02:5002:50, 14 August 2020 diff hist −49 Ron Popeil →Personal life and career: Uncited possible WP:OR. Dubious. Very large "leap". Infomercials weren't a thing until around the '90s when they were first allowed. The "very long commercial" of possibly 2 minutes or so came first.
• 02:4302:43, 14 August 2020 diff hist −13 Ron Popeil Uncited. What people know is off topic. What people "best" know is almost always uncitable. Toned down hype.

13 August 2020

• 16:1916:19, 13 August 2020 diff hist −8 QR code →Secure QR code{{anchor|SQRC}}: Changing the text written in a QR code doesn't make it a different "type". Section is also of dubious notability because there's nothing notable about any particular text written in a QR code. You could write out the same encrypted text freehand ("encoded in freehand") and it would do the same job as a QR code if computers could efficiently read freehand (which they will soon of course! :-) ).

12 August 2020

• 20:5720:57, 12 August 2020 diff hist 0 9 to 5 (Sheena Easton song) Clarified (it had looked to me like "February 1981" referred to Parton's song)

11 August 2020

• 05:1205:12, 11 August 2020 diff hist −25 QR code →Adoption: extraneous, a stated fact is presumed to be "according to" the cited reference.

10 August 2020

• 12:2812:28, 10 August 2020 diff hist −90 Christine (1983 film) Not notable, especially for lede.
• 12:1112:11, 10 August 2020 diff hist +11 Apache Hadoop Revised awkward journalistic form, split sentence.
• 12:0612:06, 10 August 2020 diff hist −101 Apache Hadoop "need a simple, clear example use case" is not a requirement for lede sections, i.e. the tag isn't justified.

9 August 2020

• 00:5400:54, 9 August 2020 diff hist −54 Mint 400 →In popular culture: digressive detail into the off-topic.
• 00:5200:52, 9 August 2020 diff hist −509 Mint 400 →Mint 400 girls: Revised so it doesn't look so promotional. Removed editorializing and extraneous hype-up detail.
• 00:4700:47, 9 August 2020 diff hist −75 Mint 400 →Notable entrants: smoothed over some unencyclopedic color and WP:editorializing
• 00:4100:41, 9 August 2020 diff hist −69 Mint 400 →Mint 400 girls: WP:editorializing, and other "eew". Most of this is promotional.

8 August 2020

• 23:1923:19, 8 August 2020 diff hist −2 Mint 400 →History: Unencyclopedic color.
• 23:1723:17, 8 August 2020 diff hist −124 Mint 400 →History: WP:editorializing
• 23:1323:13, 8 August 2020 diff hist −14 Mint 400 →History: WP:editorializing
• 08:2008:20, 8 August 2020 diff hist −167 Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas →Plot: Uncited opinion, WP:OR. Just describe the plot without the analysis. Besides, it was all pretty clear to me. You may disagree, but that would just prove were talking *opinion*. If there's a good source saying so, then include it and reinstate.
• 08:1308:13, 8 August 2020 diff hist 0 Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas →The "wave speech": Moved cite-containing sentence up to top to form a coherent paragraph, and putting the (supposedly) notability-justifying secondary source up front where it can be seen. This is going to need a little more justification for inclusion of such a large quote I think. Does the source say "it's important" or is that more opinion and WP:OR?
• 08:0408:04, 8 August 2020 diff hist −1,151 Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas →Major themes: Removed 100% opinion and uncited original research -- and tagged so for two years.
• 02:2702:27, 8 August 2020 diff hist −847 BitTorrent →BitErrant attack: Cited source doesn't say that. It's also not notable because *every* hash type has collisions and anyone can "mine" for a series of bytes that does that. There are also other ways to detect errors, so it's dubious that such a thing would be a real problem. Removing this section obviates the need for it's following "criticism" subsection, which itself is also uncited (and tagged). Tag: section blanking
• 02:0802:08, 8 August 2020 diff hist −18 BitTorrent →Legal issues: extraneous, also misleadingly implies it's the only kind
• 02:0302:03, 8 August 2020 diff hist −9 BitTorrent →Throttling and encryption: Fixed vague "more recently".
• 01:5801:58, 8 August 2020 diff hist −22 BitTorrent →Throttling and encryption: The report itself is (almost always) off-topic. If the reliable ref says something as a fact, then we also say it as a fact, without the extraneous "the ref/report says". The fact that the purport is reported is self evident given that the report is cited.