User contributions for 24.252.141.175

13 June 2015

• 20:3520:35, 13 June 2015 diff hist −637‎ Life review →Analogous concepts: irrelevant Tag: section blanking
• 19:4619:46, 13 June 2015 diff hist −614‎ Argument from authority →Appeal to non-authorities: no sources cited for the main claim here
• 18:3718:37, 13 June 2015 diff hist +20‎ Argument from authority →Appeal to non-authorities: what's the source for this?

8 June 2015

• 18:1118:11, 8 June 2015 diff hist −5‎ Argument from authority →Surgical sterilization and puerperal infections

5 June 2015

• 18:5418:54, 5 June 2015 diff hist +54‎ Wikipedia:Sandbox No edit summary
• 18:5318:53, 5 June 2015 diff hist 0‎ Wikipedia:Sandbox No edit summary
• 18:5318:53, 5 June 2015 diff hist +230‎ Wikipedia:Sandbox No edit summary
• 18:5118:51, 5 June 2015 diff hist +57‎ Wikipedia:Sandbox No edit summary
• 18:2818:28, 5 June 2015 diff hist +1‎ Argument from authority →Surgical sterilization and puerperal infections: forgot to put a period after the quote
• 18:2818:28, 5 June 2015 diff hist +2‎ Argument from authority →Surgical sterilization and puerperal infections: dividing up text a bit so we don't have a wall-like paragraph :P
• 18:2718:27, 5 June 2015 diff hist +354‎ Argument from authority →Surgical sterilization and puerperal infections: added some more detail and additional citation
• 17:3117:31, 5 June 2015 diff hist +4‎ Hunted: The Demon's Forge →Plot: should probably specify this since its quite important
• 17:2917:29, 5 June 2015 diff hist +17‎ Wikipedia:Sandbox iiiiiiiiiiiiii

2 June 2015

• 19:4319:43, 2 June 2015 diff hist −1‎ Simple eye in invertebrates No edit summary

30 May 2015

• 23:2023:20, 30 May 2015 diff hist −18‎ Hunted: The Demon's Forge →Plot

28 May 2015

• 02:5802:58, 28 May 2015 diff hist −2,617‎ PlanetSide 2 →Story: no sources given for years

17 May 2015

• 05:1505:15, 17 May 2015 diff hist +467‎ User talk:Pbrower2a →"More doctors smoke" example: new section
• 05:0805:08, 17 May 2015 diff hist 0‎ Argument from authority →Notable examples: looks better with the shorter ones together in the middle

14 May 2015

• 03:3303:33, 14 May 2015 diff hist +20‎ Sesshin No edit summary

13 May 2015

• 12:2612:26, 13 May 2015 diff hist +24‎ Argument from authority Made lead a bit clearer as to what "misuse" means. If there is no doubt or discussion then using an appeal to authority is fine, but if there's disagreement then actual evidence is needed.
• 12:1712:17, 13 May 2015 diff hist −1‎ Argument from authority →Appeal to non-authorities: generalized once more with "an" instead of "the"
• 12:1612:16, 13 May 2015 diff hist +22‎ Argument from authority →Appeal to non-authorities: clarified with "likely" and "probably" - it doesn't need to be absolute

6 May 2015

• 21:5921:59, 6 May 2015 diff hist +8‎ Argument from authority →Appeal to non-authorities

5 May 2015

• 22:0222:02, 5 May 2015 diff hist +11‎ Argument from authority →General
• 22:0022:00, 5 May 2015 diff hist +38‎ Argument from authority →General
• 20:5620:56, 5 May 2015 diff hist −12‎ Money burning →Symbolism: let's put it here until its improved or expanded upon
• 20:5620:56, 5 May 2015 diff hist −5‎ Money burning →===Game theory
• 20:5620:56, 5 May 2015 diff hist −3‎ Money burning →Game theory
• 20:5520:55, 5 May 2015 diff hist +2‎ Money burning →Game theory
• 20:5420:54, 5 May 2015 diff hist −1‎ Argument from authority →Surgical sterilization and puerperal infections

30 April 2015

• 02:4602:46, 30 April 2015 diff hist −1,783‎ User talk:24.252.141.175 →April 2015
• 01:5101:51, 30 April 2015 diff hist −2,972‎ Atlantis It. Was. Explained.
• 01:5001:50, 30 April 2015 diff hist −346‎ Money burning →Game theory: this is out of place and leads to an article that makes absolutely no sense Tag: section blanking

27 April 2015

• 03:4203:42, 27 April 2015 diff hist −2,972‎ Atlantis It was explained - the citation is to his work and he says people looking for it "seek in vain". He didn't think it existed. Don't call something unexplained when a clear reason is given

25 April 2015

• 06:2506:25, 25 April 2015 diff hist −50‎ Argument from authority noticed another instance like that below - does the "span id

13 April 2015

• 05:0305:03, 13 April 2015 diff hist −2,972‎ Atlantis →Jewish and Christian: Tertullian explciitly says that that place is "sought in vain". He didn't think it existed - removing the inaccurate information

6 April 2015

• 11:0711:07, 6 April 2015 diff hist −246‎ Virginity →Judaism: no source cited and bordering on WP:OR

3 April 2015

• 09:0309:03, 3 April 2015 diff hist +232‎ User talk:KateWishing →Revision on Polyamory
• 09:0109:01, 3 April 2015 diff hist +964‎ Polyamory The objection is patently false - the source talks explicitly about criticisms of polygamy as quoted just now on the Talk, contrary to your claims.
• 08:5708:57, 3 April 2015 diff hist +515‎ Talk:Polyamory →Source Reliability
• 08:4908:49, 3 April 2015 diff hist +1‎ User talk:KateWishing →Revision on Polyamory
• 08:4908:49, 3 April 2015 diff hist +2‎ User talk:KateWishing →Revision on Polyamory
• 08:4808:48, 3 April 2015 diff hist +715‎ User talk:KateWishing →Revision on Polyamory
• 08:4208:42, 3 April 2015 diff hist +361‎ User talk:KateWishing →Revision on Polyamory
• 08:4108:41, 3 April 2015 diff hist +964‎ Polyamory Undid revision 654538053 by KateWishing (talk) Its said on the Talk Page that the source does specifically discuss polyamory and cite that study. Be sure to read the entire discussions
• 08:3808:38, 3 April 2015 diff hist −437‎ Monogamy →Benefits in Humans: except that part, which turned out to be incorrect
• 08:3708:37, 3 April 2015 diff hist +2,037‎ Monogamy →Psychology of monogamy: ends of discussions on talk pages reached consensus that material was valid

31 March 2015

• 20:5020:50, 31 March 2015 diff hist −25‎ Webdriver Torso →Speculation: YouTube affirmed its their's - it says so right on the page
• 20:2820:28, 31 March 2015 diff hist +353‎ User talk:KateWishing →Revision on Polyamory: new section
• 20:2620:26, 31 March 2015 diff hist +964‎ Polyamory It was agreed the material was fitting. Everything is properly cited, including sources that cite those same studies