Top edits to an page
All edits made to a page by one user, in chronological order.
| Page | Talk:Tired light (Log · Page History) |
| User | Dmcq (Edit Counter· Top Edits) |
| Total edits | 80 |
| Minor edits | 2 (2.5%) |
| (Semi-)automated edits | 1 (1.2%) |
| Reverted edits | 0 (0%) |
| atbe1 | 2.4 |
| Added (bytes)2 | 26,748 |
| Deleted (bytes) | -421 |
Minor edits
·
2 (2.5%)
Major edits
·
78 (97.5%)
(Semi-)automated edits
·
1 (1.2%)
Manual edits
·
79 (98.8%)
Reverted edits
·
0 (0%)
Unreverted edits
·
80 (100%)
1 Average time between edits (days)
2 Added text is any positive addition that wasn't reverted (approximate)
| Date | Links | Size | Edit summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2011-12-16 11:59 | Diff · History | 87 | →photon aging: couldn't see anything notable myself |
| 2011-12-16 11:54 | Diff · History | 306 | →photon aging: perhaps include but distinguish? |
| 2011-11-19 20:11 | Diff · History | 605 | →ancient galaxies Contradict the big bang theory: speculative is about right |
| 2011-11-14 10:52 | Diff · History | 329 | →ancient galaxies Contradict the big bang theory: Yes the Accardi looks ok but would one want it? |
| 2011-11-14 09:34 | Diff · History | 375 | →ancient galaxies Contradict the big bang theory: Pioneer anomaly |
| 2011-11-13 09:56 | Diff · History | 421 | →ancient galaxies Contradict the big bang theory: we don't ignore them |
| 2011-11-12 21:16 | Diff · History | 288 | →ancient galaxies Contradict the big bang theory: been told this is a waste of time |
| 2011-11-06 16:38 | Diff · History | 576 | →ancient galaxies Contradict the big bang theory: -> some science discussion forum |
| 2011-11-06 13:54 | Diff · History | 184 | →ancient galaxies Contradict the big bang theory: two billion years |
| 2011-11-06 13:51 | Diff · History | 1 | →ancient galaxies Contradict the big bang theory: typo |
| 2011-11-06 13:50 | Diff · History | 491 | →ancient galaxies Contradict the big bang theory: -> WP:5P |
| 2011-11-05 19:56 | Diff · History | 248 | →ancient galaxies Contradict the big bang theory: Not relevant to this page |
| 2011-11-04 21:58 | Diff · History | 306 | →ancient galaxies Contradict the big bang theory: no original research |
| 2011-11-04 21:01 | Diff · History | 114 | →ancient galaxies Contradict the big bang theory: tired light not mentioned |
| 2011-10-24 22:50 | Diff · History | 207 | →Last Section leaves one hanging: ->Science reference desk |
| 2011-10-24 20:30 | Diff · History | 188 | →Last Section leaves one hanging: will wait till then |
| 2011-10-24 18:38 | Diff · History | 482 | →Last Section leaves one hanging: jelly water |
| 2011-10-24 18:31 | Diff · History | 487 | →Last Section leaves one hanging: We go by reliable sources |
| 2011-10-24 14:04 | Diff · History | 229 | →Last Section leaves one hanging: seems fanatical |
| 2011-10-20 17:19 | Diff · History | 321 | →Any pertinent papers to be added or deleted?: no need to labour it |
| 2011-10-19 11:30 | Diff · History | 184 | →Last Section leaves one hanging: Thanks |
| 2011-10-19 10:37 | Diff · History | 282 | →Last Section leaves one hanging: to each their own |
| 2011-10-18 16:33 | Diff · History | 31 | →Misleading, apparently erroneous last section: explicit please |
| 2011-10-18 16:32 | Diff · History | 9 | →Misleading, apparently erroneous last section: delimit from my contribution |
| 2011-10-18 16:30 | Diff · History | 144 | →Misleading, apparently erroneous last section: please explain further |
| 2011-10-18 11:59 | Diff · History | 235 | →Any pertinent papers to be added or deleted?: agree with that |
| 2011-10-18 11:44 | Diff · History | -385 | →Any pertinent papers to be added or deleted?: sorry you were asking about fringe science |
| 2011-10-18 11:40 | Diff · History | 891 | →Any pertinent papers to be added or deleted?: just go by the peer reviews and sources |
| 2011-10-05 07:36 | Diff · History | 323 | →Any pertinent papers to be added or deleted?: expand on it |
| 2011-10-05 07:24 | Diff · History | 174 | →Any pertinent papers to be added or deleted?: yep agree |
| 2011-09-11 20:23 | Diff · History | 0 | Reverted 1 edit by 80.219.148.87 (talk): Please do not change other peoples comments. (TW) |
| 2011-06-22 07:20 | Diff · History | -1 | →Restore section on Recent Controversy: indent proper level |
| 2011-06-22 07:19 | Diff · History | 338 | →Restore section on Recent Controversy: can be done but better to just stick it out |
| 2011-06-21 21:21 | Diff · History | 425 | →Edit request: consensus against you |
| 2011-06-21 16:31 | Diff · History | 218 | →Contextualizing Crawford's Nature paper: have asked for semi protection |
| 2011-06-21 15:47 | Diff · History | 356 | →Contextualizing Crawford's Nature paper: protection and usernames |
| 2011-06-21 15:12 | Diff · History | 369 | →Contextualizing Crawford's Nature paper: ->SPI |
| 2011-06-21 14:56 | Diff · History | 602 | →Contextualizing Crawford's Nature paper: very strange |
| 2011-06-21 14:30 | Diff · History | 228 | →Contextualizing Crawford's Nature paper: -> WP:NPA |
| 2011-06-21 14:24 | Diff · History | 284 | →Not scientists: silly ad hominem arguments |
| 2011-06-20 22:24 | Diff · History | 212 | →Specific falsified models: and I'm changing too! |
| 2011-06-20 18:06 | Diff · History | 463 | →Specific falsified models: meaning of falsified |
| 2011-06-20 18:00 | Diff · History | 146 | →Specific falsified models: fine by me |
| 2011-06-15 14:31 | Diff · History | 1,090 | →stop the hatchet job: bad logic |
| 2011-06-15 13:54 | Diff · History | 407 | →stop the hatchet job: and where does he say that? |
| 2011-06-14 16:46 | Diff · History | 167 | →stop the hatchet job: no reference to a tired light type theory |
| 2011-06-14 16:32 | Diff · History | 524 | →stop the hatchet job: citation + worth squat |
| 2011-06-14 16:25 | Diff · History | 150 | →stop the hatchet job: does not mention redshift either |
| 2011-06-14 12:19 | Diff · History | 859 | →stop the hatchet job: my usual suspect seems to be innocent |
| 2011-06-13 21:54 | Diff · History | 285 | →Lubin and Sandage in a peer-reviewed journal vs. Disney in a magazine?: unobservables |
| 2011-06-13 16:32 | Diff · History | 425 | →Lubin and Sandage in a peer-reviewed journal vs. Disney in a magazine?: pull the other one |
| 2011-06-13 15:29 | Diff · History | 517 | →Lubin and Sandage in a peer-reviewed journal vs. Disney in a magazine?: yep probably not close enough |
| 2011-06-13 14:52 | Diff · History | 572 | →Lubin and Sandage in a peer-reviewed journal vs. Disney in a magazine?: my tuppence |
| 2011-06-13 06:22 | Diff · History | 204 | →Articles explaining the Redshift with no expansion of space: think this was meant for another discussion |
| 2011-06-13 06:03 | Diff · History | 229 | →Articles explaining the Redshift with no expansion of space: no such reference here that I can see |
| 2011-06-12 22:41 | Diff · History | 232 | →Articles explaining the Redshift with no expansion of space: what are you referring to? |
| 2011-06-11 11:59 | Diff · History | 237 | →Some fringe ideas are notable: page aboout article not editors |
| 2011-06-11 09:51 | Diff · History | 312 | →Articles explaining the Redshift with no expansion of space: I can't see a valid objection under policy for including this rubbish |
| 2011-06-11 09:40 | Diff · History | 653 | →Articles explaining the Redshift with no expansion of space: Aperion stuff |
| 2011-06-11 08:55 | Diff · History | 686 | →Articles explaining the Redshift with no expansion of space: same distribution channel |
| 2011-06-11 00:16 | Diff · History | 727 | →Articles explaining the Redshift with no expansion of space: Aperion? |
| 2011-06-10 23:03 | Diff · History | 960 | →Articles explaining the Redshift with no expansion of space: Occam's razor |
| 2011-06-10 22:23 | Diff · History | 908 | →Articles explaining the Redshift with no expansion of space: not a publication of AIP |
| 2011-06-10 13:00 | Diff · History | 272 | →Articles explaining the Redshift with no expansion of space: just distributed |
| 2011-06-05 12:12 | Diff · History | 20 | →The big bang is a religion: both |
| 2011-06-05 12:11 | Diff · History | 272 | →The big bang is a religion: need a better source |
| 2011-06-04 21:09 | Diff · History | 276 | →Edit request from Crazymonkey1123, 3 June 2011: no but makes teeth grind |
| 2011-06-04 21:04 | Diff · History | 361 | →The big bang is a religion: loads of fraudsters around |
| 2011-06-04 20:52 | Diff · History | 527 | →Some fringe ideas are notable: that's up to the sources |
| 2011-06-04 16:36 | Diff · History | 379 | →The big bang is a religion: We try not to 'steal the cake' |
| 2011-06-04 14:53 | Diff · History | -35 | →Some fringe ideas are notable: I messed up the title somehow |
| 2011-06-04 14:51 | Diff · History | 282 | →The big bang is a religion: odd sort of rhing |
| 2011-06-04 14:42 | Diff · History | 0 | →The big bang is a religion: typos |
| 2011-06-04 14:42 | Diff · History | 425 | →The big bang is a religion: all hail the seer |
| 2011-06-04 10:15 | Diff · History | 70 | →Some fringe ideas are notable: sign |
| 2011-06-04 10:14 | Diff · History | 624 | →Some fringe ideas are notable: no attack |
| 2011-06-03 17:32 | Diff · History | 312 | →Some fringe ideas are notable: new section |
| 2011-06-03 17:02 | Diff · History | 140 | →Tired light is not dead as wikipedia claims: no, distributed by their distribution channel |
| 2011-06-03 17:01 | Diff · History | 299 | →Proposed consensus: no, misunderstanding of that page |
| 2011-06-03 15:10 | Diff · History | 186 | →Proposed consensus: Not that I can see |
All times are in UTC.