Top edits to an page
All edits made to a page by one user, in chronological order.
| Page | Sweden–NATO relations (Log · Page History) |
| User | HolyT (Edit Counter· Top Edits) |
| Total edits | 19 |
| Minor edits | 0 (0%) |
| (Semi-)automated edits | 0 (0%) |
| Reverted edits | 0 (0%) |
| atbe1 | 30.8 |
| Added (bytes)2 | 464 |
| Deleted (bytes) | -241 |
Minor edits
·
0 (0%)
Major edits
·
19 (100%)
(Semi-)automated edits
·
0 (0%)
Manual edits
·
19 (100%)
Reverted edits
·
0 (0%)
Unreverted edits
·
19 (100%)
1 Average time between edits (days)
2 Added text is any positive addition that wasn't reverted (approximate)
| Date | Links | Size | Edit summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-03-28 16:35 | Diff · History | -118 | →top: ce see Talk page at Sweden–NATO_relations#Clunky_opening_sentence |
| 2024-03-18 21:59 | Diff · History | -1 | ce fixed own edit (leftover punctuation) |
| 2024-03-18 21:58 | Diff · History | 37 | →top: ce punctuation; Sweden cooperated with both sides at times during WWII, according to the linked Wikipedia article |
| 2024-03-17 06:06 | Diff · History | -33 | →top: ce simpler |
| 2024-03-06 17:49 | Diff · History | 1 | →Hungary's response: ce punctuation |
| 2024-03-06 08:34 | Diff · History | -31 | →Hungary's response: ce non-breaking space; clearer & more accurate usage; grammar; fixed and shortened awkward sentence that will soon be obviated at any rate. The sentence was convoluted. It didn't say what the other "steps" might be. I understand that someone was just trying to cram every idea from the source into the article, but it was a poorly written sentence in the original. |
| 2024-03-04 18:17 | Diff · History | 2 | →top: ce spelling, missing word; split first sentence. (If changed back to one sentence, please put a comma before the new subject [Sweden] of the second independent clause.) |
| 2024-03-02 22:23 | Diff · History | 0 | →Hungary's response: ce fixed syntax of either . . . or construction |
| 2024-03-02 22:21 | Diff · History | -2 | →Hungary's response: ce numbers per MOS:NUMNOTES |
| 2024-03-01 21:53 | Diff · History | -35 | →Hungary's response: ce rm incorrect comma that was directly between subject and predicate (always wrong), much simpler and shorter syntax |
| 2024-02-05 20:40 | Diff · History | -2 | →Ratification process: ce fixed terrible usage & grammar |
| 2024-01-30 18:50 | Diff · History | 284 | →2022–present accession process: ce I answered my own "when?" question by reading a Reuters article; improved own earlier edit |
| 2024-01-30 18:44 | Diff · History | 136 | →2022–present accession process: ce encyclopedic tone, syntax, grammar, aspect, tense, usage, punctuation |
| 2024-01-30 18:34 | Diff · History | -3 | →Political views: ce no need for "Then–" prefix; the date in the sentence establishes the time context, so no attentive reader should be confused |
| 2024-01-24 21:22 | Diff · History | 1 | →2022–present accession process: ce "phone call" is two words, as in the rest of the article; no reason to hyphenate "late February"! |
| 2023-11-20 17:49 | Diff · History | -1 | →2022–2023 accession process: ce punctuation: comma no longer needed after date format was changed (clause connected by coordinating conjunction has no change in subject from main clause) |
| 2023-01-17 17:14 | Diff · History | -15 | →Accession bid: ce caps, usage, consistent punctuation style within article |
| 2022-08-21 20:48 | Diff · History | 2 | →History: ce punctuation, consistency, grammar |
| 2022-08-21 20:42 | Diff · History | 1 | →History: ce punctuation, clarity |
All times are in UTC.