Top edits to an page
All edits made to a page by one user, in chronological order.
| Page | Peer review (Log · Page History) |
| User | K (Edit Counter· Top Edits) |
| Total edits | 17 |
| Minor edits | 3 (17.6%) |
| (Semi-)automated edits | 0 (0%) |
| Reverted edits | 0 (0%) |
| atbe1 | 23.6 |
| Added (bytes)2 | 767 |
| Deleted (bytes) | -2,450 |
Minor edits
·
3 (17.6%)
Major edits
·
14 (82.4%)
(Semi-)automated edits
·
0 (0%)
Manual edits
·
17 (100%)
Reverted edits
·
0 (0%)
Unreverted edits
·
17 (100%)
1 Average time between edits (days)
2 Added text is any positive addition that wasn't reverted (approximate)
| Date | Links | Size | Edit summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2007-07-12 18:45 | Diff · History | -1 | →Peer review failures: corrections -> criticisms |
| 2006-10-19 05:01 | Diff · History | 19 | →U.S. Government Peer Review Policies: |
| 2006-10-19 05:00 | Diff · History | -9 | →U.S. Government Peer Review Policies: Removing whitespace |
| 2006-10-19 04:59 | Diff · History | -1 | Moving putative assertion of US policy to bottom of article where country-specific into belongs with respect to a topic such as this |
| 2006-07-24 20:36 | Diff · History | -15 | →Peer review failures: "appear to have been" -> were |
| 2006-06-28 03:47 | Diff · History | -617 | →History of peer review: Rmv obvious POV and hyperbole. The inquisition was not review by peers, but a previous subset of what would today be called junk science |
| 2006-06-28 03:28 | Diff · History | -3 | →Peer review failures: remove unnecessary "an" |
| 2006-06-28 03:27 | Diff · History | -2 | →Peer review failures: "A peer review failure occurs when" -> "Peer review failures occur when". These are not merely hypothetical. Thanks again Plantguy for starting this important section. |
| 2006-06-28 02:23 | Diff · History | -15 | →Peer review failures: Rmv OR-section tag. I trust most editors will agree this section can quickly achieve and maintain a stable, informative role in the article. Thanks Plantguy |
| 2006-06-27 15:00 | Diff · History | 15 | →Peer review failures: Citation-needed tag unilaterally removed by Plantguy, rather than giving citation(s) for these definitions. Let's back these original definitions with sources please. |
| 2006-06-27 04:16 | Diff · History | 17 | →Peer review failures: correct Wiki |
| 2006-06-27 03:42 | Diff · History | 29 | →Peer review failures: copyedit in second paragraph |
| 2006-06-27 03:40 | Diff · History | 249 | →Peer review failures: Add the Jacques Benveniste episode |
| 2006-06-27 03:34 | Diff · History | 430 | →Peer review failures: Add a view of the extremes, with example of Watson and Crick |
| 2006-06-27 03:25 | Diff · History | 8 | →Peer review failures: In light of the Jacques Benveniste affair, we should have a reasonable citation for this sentence's assertion |
| 2006-06-07 06:12 | Diff · History | -5 | Rmv whitespace |
| 2006-06-07 05:51 | Diff · History | -1,782 | →Famous papers which were not peer-reviewed: Remove section with obvious POV content and place on Talk page for further analysis and discussion as to relevance and validity |
All times are in UTC.