Top edits to an page
All edits made to a page by one user, in chronological order.
| Page | ITER (Log · Page History) |
| User | StevenBKrivit (Edit Counter· Top Edits) |
| Total edits | 46 |
| Minor edits | 6 (13%) |
| (Semi-)automated edits | 1 (2.2%) |
| Reverted edits | 5 (10.9%) |
| atbe1 | 29.3 |
| Added (bytes)2 | 5,359 |
| Deleted (bytes) | -5,874 |
Minor edits
·
6 (13%)
Major edits
·
40 (87%)
(Semi-)automated edits
·
1 (2.2%)
Manual edits
·
45 (97.8%)
Reverted edits
·
5 (10.9%)
Unreverted edits
·
41 (89.1%)
1 Average time between edits (days)
2 Added text is any positive addition that wasn't reverted (approximate)
| Date | Links | Size | Edit summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-08-04 15:56 | Diff · History | 48 | (reverted) This sidesteps the point. The current phrase, as is, as I already explained, creates a patently false impression. This will be my last attempt to fix this. Good luck. |
| 2021-08-04 14:40 | Diff · History | 1 | (reverted) Every sentence, in every paragraph, should be as precise and accurate as possible and should be able to stand alone without needed secondary paragraphs to fix false impressions.Also, since the published values are given as MW, the correct term would be power, not energy. |
| 2021-08-04 14:38 | Diff · History | 46 | (reverted) We don't want to create the false impression - for people who are not fusion experts - that the overall reactor is designed to "produce 10 times as much output energy as input." That misunderstanding has been perpetuated for far too long. So either this entire phrase needs to go or it needs to be as precise as I've made it now. We cannot assume that people will read the second paragraph to develop the deeper and more nuanced meaning. Every sentence, in every paragraph, should be as precise and a |
| 2021-08-03 01:51 | Diff · History | 54 | 10x gain corrected |
| 2021-05-31 04:30 | Diff · History | -663 | WP:OR Remove statement and citation added on May 8 2021 by editor John Draper of paper by John Draper |
| 2021-05-31 01:12 | Diff · History | -88 | Remove meaningless sentence: "Its results are intended to bolster the global nuclear fusion industry" |
| 2021-05-31 01:06 | Diff · History | -16 | remove orphaned reference |
| 2021-05-31 01:03 | Diff · History | -579 | Undid revision 1025978428 by AnomieBOT (talk) |
| 2021-05-31 00:57 | Diff · History | -282 | This is not the section for critical science goals. Yes, testing tritium is one of several objectives of the experiment, as listed in the Objectives section. No, tritium is not the most significant of these objectives, deserving exlusive listing here, in the second paragraph. For reasons unknown to me, you are very aggressively pushing a unique POV without much credence for this POV. If you continue pushing this POV and re-inserting tritium here, I will ask for arbitration. |
| 2021-05-30 15:33 | Diff · History | -281 | Removed tritium from LEDE, WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. Tritium is discussed in Background section and in Objectives section. |
| 2021-05-30 15:30 | Diff · History | 7 | to clarify that ITER itself is not designed for electricity generation |
| 2021-05-30 15:16 | Diff · History | -1,322 | Removed paragraph because 1. Edit was placed by author of citation (WP:OR) 2. Edit places UNDUE EMPHASIS on only one of the planned DEMO-class reactor designs. 3. The DEMO phase is NOT named after the EU DEMO design. |
| 2021-05-30 15:05 | Diff · History | 51 | clarify wording about "heat energy created" and electricity production and change wording from "DEMO" to "DEMO-class" There is no design or agreement for a single DEMO reactor that will follow ITER.There has never been any design or agreement for a single DEMO reactor that will follow ITER. |
| 2021-05-30 14:53 | Diff · History | 7 | Clarify that ITER won't generate its own fuel, it is testing the ability for future reactors to be able to do this. |
| 2021-05-17 02:36 | Diff · History | -5 | further distinction between the general purpose of the project versus the specific measurable objectives of the project |
| 2021-05-17 02:08 | Diff · History | 21 | apply wording that distinguishes general goal of the project from the scientific objective of the project |
| 2021-05-17 02:06 | Diff · History | 2,432 | Restored major section of article lead that had been removed without discussion or debate on TALK page. |
| 2021-03-26 15:12 | Diff · History | 0 | "heating" is more specific and precise than "thermal" |
| 2020-09-12 02:54 | Diff · History | -415 | (reverted) Remove false power claim |
| 2020-08-30 03:16 | Diff · History | 281 | →Timeline and status: |
| 2020-07-31 21:04 | Diff · History | 417 | add new power output value |
| 2020-07-21 01:47 | Diff · History | -937 | @Cloud200, there are some problems with one paragraph in your insertion. If you would kindly bring it over to TALK, we can discuss. Thank you. |
| 2020-06-11 19:18 | Diff · History | 5 | for people who are not experts, and who may not know what a plasma it, it would help to know that thermal power is compared with thermal power |
| 2020-06-03 20:38 | Diff · History | 546 | add list of Director-Generals |
| 2020-06-03 14:14 | Diff · History | 144 | book on iter published by Springer |
| 2020-05-02 17:13 | Diff · History | -21 | This should improve it: "Plasma of X MW" is standard language. |
| 2020-05-02 01:56 | Diff · History | -35 | 1. "output power" is not correct b/c 20% of the 500 MW will remain inside. 2. the plasma is not designed to BE EQUIVALENT to ...power. The plasma is designed to HAVE a value of 500 MW of power. Yes, folks generally talk about fusion particles having energy. But MW is not an en energy value. |
| 2018-12-22 23:44 | Diff · History | -28 | redundant. already covered in paragraph 2 |
| 2018-09-17 16:37 | Diff · History | -11 | please cite a reference indicating that the name was officially changed, rather than a component of the ITER public relations activity |
| 2018-08-22 14:36 | Diff · History | -6 | change "the final goal" to "the goal" |
| 2018-08-20 15:15 | Diff · History | -197 | that's not the point. see TALK please |
| 2018-08-20 14:18 | Diff · History | -197 | (reverted) power statement correction |
| 2018-07-26 05:18 | Diff · History | 457 | output and purpose clarification, added references |
| 2018-07-25 22:37 | Diff · History | 11 | disambiguate scientific breakeven from engineering breakeven |
| 2018-07-25 22:36 | Diff · History | -7 | power clarification |
| 2018-07-25 22:31 | Diff · History | -111 | not specifically designed for ignition, only listed as a possibility. See ITER TECHNICAL BASIS which says "the possibility of controlled ignition should not be precluded" |
| 2018-07-25 21:54 | Diff · History | 9 | power corrections |
| 2018-07-23 00:58 | Diff · History | -1,140 | the name change is covered in paragraph two, no need for an unsourced, anectodal story |
| 2018-07-23 00:54 | Diff · History | 57 | That information in "background" section has no source. |
| 2018-07-22 21:26 | Diff · History | 137 | power output |
| 2018-07-17 04:49 | Diff · History | 92 | |
| 2018-07-17 04:25 | Diff · History | 8 | |
| 2018-07-17 04:19 | Diff · History | 0 | |
| 2018-07-16 22:19 | Diff · History | -145 | First reference is unsourced and replaced by a reference to IAEA. Second reference is replaced by an older source providing an upper date bound for the rebranding effort. |
| 2018-04-15 16:07 | Diff · History | 1 | the "30 seconds" refers to the peak |
| 2017-11-26 16:53 | Diff · History | 622 | Correcting statements about ITER power design. See TALK for discussion |
All times are in UTC.