Top edits to an page
All edits made to a page by one user, in chronological order.
| Page | Babri Masjid (Log · Page History) |
| User | Vanamonde93 (Edit Counter· Top Edits) |
| Total edits | 87 |
| Minor edits | 1 (1.1%) |
| (Semi-)automated edits | 54 (62.1%) |
| Reverted edits | 6 (6.9%) |
| atbe1 | 43.4 |
| Added (bytes)2 | 69,611 |
| Deleted (bytes) | -6,433 |
Minor edits
·
1 (1.1%)
Major edits
·
86 (98.9%)
(Semi-)automated edits
·
54 (62.1%)
Manual edits
·
33 (37.9%)
Reverted edits
·
6 (6.9%)
Unreverted edits
·
81 (93.1%)
1 Average time between edits (days)
2 Added text is any positive addition that wasn't reverted (approximate)
| Date | Links | Size | Edit summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-10-25 17:59 | Diff · History | -25 | Reverted 1 edit by Parantak.yadav (talk): Unclear that the mosque was built on land ''already identified'' as such. The subsequent dispute is well covered already. |
| 2024-05-30 18:28 | Diff · History | -111 | Restored revision 1225637152 by Pur 0 0 (talk): Rv malformed additions; some of those changes may be accurate, but need to be worked into the text in a readable way, with reference to reliable sources |
| 2024-03-28 17:27 | Diff · History | -75 | (reverted) this is a remarkably meaningless description in the infobox. "fate = Ram Mandir"? What is a reader supposed to take from that? |
| 2024-03-15 15:26 | Diff · History | -97 | misleading parameters that oversimplify a complex situation; the body of the article is the place for this material |
| 2024-02-10 16:48 | Diff · History | -12 | unnecessary, and not the common name in the literature we cite |
| 2024-01-28 17:15 | Diff · History | 8 | I didn't mean to revert this piece, not sure how that happened... |
| 2024-01-28 17:11 | Diff · History | 8 | this wording change isn't an improvement |
| 2024-01-22 21:23 | Diff · History | 66,089 | Restored revision 1198034477 by Hemiauchenia (talk): Rv additions based on poor grammar and inappropriate sourcing; where ample scholarly sourcing exists, we should not rely on news reports, per WP:RS |
| 2024-01-21 18:32 | Diff · History | -763 | rv deletions of sourced content, addition of a quote that doesn't add meaning |
| 2024-01-20 18:12 | Diff · History | -743 | Reverted 1 edit by Echo1Charlie (talk): Rv sensationalist material from a questionable source; we have scholarly sources here, there is no call to rely on chery-picked quotations in the media |
| 2024-01-14 04:50 | Diff · History | -77 | Not a common name in today's parlance; also, the first sentence is already very long and difficult to parse |
| 2024-01-10 20:08 | Diff · History | -10 | Reverted 1 edit by Rabsnieder (talk): A mosque (or any building) is a structure by definition; what does this add? |
| 2023-12-29 11:43 | Diff · History | 13 | Reverted 1 edit by Saksham Raj Japla (talk): We follow what reliable sources say, and no scholarly source accepts that this is Rama's birthplace, only that it is believed to be. |
| 2023-07-29 14:41 | Diff · History | 69 | Reverted 1 edit by Biharpro7252 (talk): I'm not seeing why these are inappropriate; please explain changes using edit summaries like this one. |
| 2020-08-26 16:09 | Diff · History | -909 | Reverted 2 edits by Dr2Rao (talk): Please stop edit-warring over this, and reach a consensus on the talk page. (TW) |
| 2020-07-17 05:07 | Diff · History | -24 | Reverted 1 edit by Mohammad Tausif (talk): Rv pov commentary without a source (TW) |
| 2020-06-16 21:41 | Diff · History | -69 | Reverted 1 edit by Hari147 (talk): The legal dispute is over; the broader dispute is not. (TW) |
| 2020-06-01 15:21 | Diff · History | -48 | →See also: related based on...what exactly? do sources make the connection between them? |
| 2020-05-26 16:26 | Diff · History | -33 | Reverted 1 edit by HinduKshatrana: That's thoroughly inappropriate in the hatnote, which is typically meant only for disambiguation. The Ram Temple link needs to be added to the lead and body, whereever appropriate. (TW) |
| 2019-11-11 15:30 | Diff · History | 5 | Reverted 1 edit by Prong$31: That's not saying "Ayodhya". That is indeed a belief held widely enough to make such a statement. This refers to a specific site in Ayodhya, and you need better sourcing to make that claim. (TW) |
| 2019-11-11 01:37 | Diff · History | 5 | (reverted) Undid revision 925494244 by Prong$31 (talk) Yes indeed. This wording has been in place for a while, and reflects the fact that the belief is not universal. |
| 2019-11-10 01:00 | Diff · History | 15 | this isn't a universal belief; we shouldn't be suggesting it is. |
| 2019-10-16 23:01 | Diff · History | 21 | Reverted 1 edit by Lalobabo (talk): Rv unexplained deletion (TW) |
| 2019-10-11 18:21 | Diff · History | 62 | Reverted 1 pending edit by 103.239.168.123 to revision 920287558 by InternetArchiveBot: No you didn't, you removed cited content. |
| 2019-09-29 20:50 | Diff · History | -61 | →Etymology: Can't see this in the sources |
| 2019-09-29 20:42 | Diff · History | 142 | Reverted 1 pending edit by 162.12.247.241 to revision 918646139 by Kstone999: rv removal with misleading summary |
| 2019-09-25 16:06 | Diff · History | -11 | the sources don't say this, and also what does it mean in this context? |
| 2019-09-25 15:58 | Diff · History | 149 | Reverted 2 pending edits by 2401:4900:1907:18B0:1:2:AC6:B893 to revision 917713459 by Kautilya3: that's inadequate explanation when the sources clearly list it as a name |
| 2019-09-07 19:54 | Diff · History | -19 | It's cited in the body. |
| 2019-04-23 17:32 | Diff · History | -106 | →External links: No consensus among RS about "conversion" |
| 2019-04-21 16:24 | Diff · History | 274 | Reverted 1 pending edit to revision 893454360 by Vivek Ray: rv changes with misleading edit summary. Please see WP:V and WP:NOR; we need to accurately report what reliable sources say about this. |
| 2019-04-08 20:30 | Diff · History | -14 | Reverted 1 pending edit by 203.192.251.131 to revision 891383013 by Vanamonde93: incomprehensible; unclear what the intent is |
| 2019-04-07 16:16 | Diff · History | -201 | incoherent, in the wrong place |
| 2019-02-25 06:02 | Diff · History | 449 | Reverted 1 pending edit by 157.45.111.31 to revision 884908655 by Dmoore5556: rv removal with misleading summary; we present Indian borders how reliable sources describe them. |
| 2019-02-02 01:11 | Diff · History | -285 | conference proceedings are generally not peer reviewed, and are therefore not ideal for material where peer reviewed scholarly sources are available. |
| 2019-02-02 01:05 | Diff · History | 1 | Reverted 1 edit by 205.253.156.41 (talk): It was demolished in 1992, as the article says: "was" is correct. (TW) |
| 2019-01-22 18:14 | Diff · History | -11 | Reverted 1 pending edit by 223.190.126.253 to revision 879013536 by Csgir: confusing |
| 2019-01-10 22:10 | Diff · History | 22 | Reverted 1 pending edit by 103.111.133.117 to revision 876736788 by Flyer22 Reborn: Removal of sourced content; no firmer evidence exists for the demolition |
| 2018-12-05 23:40 | Diff · History | 79 | ce, switch China Post for a more reliable ref |
| 2018-11-24 18:36 | Diff · History | 1 | (reverted) Reverted 1 edit by Lakshay2000 (talk): Please see the rather extensive discussions about when that page should be moved, if at all. . (TW) |
| 2018-11-08 18:44 | Diff · History | 125 | Reverted 1 pending edit by 2409:4042:2309:8363:921B:2F1E:F5BB:F632 to revision 867244110 by Nosebagbear: revert removal of sourced content |
| 2018-10-21 22:33 | Diff · History | -439 | →Etymology: Koenrad Elst is not a reliable source |
| 2018-10-21 22:33 | Diff · History | 71 | Reverted 1 pending edit by 2605:6001:EB51:CA00:E4D8:3C79:7C66:F4A9 to revision 863690198 by RegentsPark: rv unexplained removal |
| 2018-08-28 10:11 | Diff · History | -5 | Reverted 1 pending edit by 150.107.8.247 to revision 856317485 by Adamstraw99: Maybe, but that's not what this source says |
| 2018-08-06 10:33 | Diff · History | 125 | Reverted 1 pending edit by 134.159.168.74 to revision 853399810 by Newslinger: that's not what the sources say |
| 2018-04-10 05:46 | Diff · History | 114 | Reverted 1 edit by 142.245.59.10 (talk): Sorry, that isn't what the sources say. (TW) |
| 2018-01-22 13:45 | Diff · History | -8 | Reverted 1 edit by 124.123.60.146 (talk): Not quite what the sources say. (TW) |
| 2017-12-29 08:47 | Diff · History | 128 | Reverted 2 edits by Logical weapon (talk): Not what the source says. (TW) |
| 2017-12-25 13:10 | Diff · History | 125 | Reverted 1 edit by Logical weapon (talk): That's not a typo, and you are being disruptive. (TW) |
| 2017-12-12 19:56 | Diff · History | 125 | Undid revision 815089104 by Logical weapon (talk) RV unexplained removal |
| 2017-12-12 18:18 | Diff · History | 125 | (reverted) Reverted 1 edit by Logical weapon (talk): A citation is not required in the lead; the lead is supposed to be a summary of sourced content in the body. (TW) |
| 2017-12-12 14:53 | Diff · History | 212 | that is ''not'' what the scholarly sources say: please discuss this. |
| 2017-12-03 05:56 | Diff · History | -24 | Reverted to revision 812288291 by Vanamonde93 (talk): Please see WP:INDICSCRIPTS. (TW) |
| 2017-11-27 02:34 | Diff · History | -43 | correcting grammar (are you really edit-warring to maintain poor English?) and rephrasing the sentence to make it clear the ASI had nothing to say about the destruction. |
| 2017-11-26 16:52 | Diff · History | -138 | (reverted) Reverted 2 edits by AdhunikaSarvajna (talk): Your addition makes the sentence completely ungrammatical; additionally, the sources are not as clear cut as that. (TW) |
| 2017-11-26 10:55 | Diff · History | -843 | Reverted 1 edit by IvankaTr (talk): Sorry, that is ''not'' what those sources say. The sources put forward evidence for a temple: not for its destruction. (TW) |
| 2017-10-23 09:47 | Diff · History | -158 | Reverted 1 edit by 106.76.60.43 (talk): OR, potentially hoax, needs a reliable source. (TW) |
| 2017-10-14 16:03 | Diff · History | 78 | Reverted to revision 803019377 by 2405:204:6206:9A6E:0:0:177E:90A5 (talk): Unexplained changes to sourced content. (TW) |
| 2017-08-17 06:28 | Diff · History | -40 | Reverted to revision 791762821 by Flyer22 Reborn (talk): That's not what the sources say. (TW) |
| 2017-04-20 05:01 | Diff · History | 260 | replacing with a clearer, sourced version |
| 2017-03-26 06:50 | Diff · History | 49 | Reverted 1 pending edit by Sanketsvnus to revision 772085746 by Kevin12xd: Unexplained removal |
| 2017-03-22 05:11 | Diff · History | -410 | Reverted to revision 771477831 by Utcursch (talk): Revert unsourced content, removal of sourced description. I dunno about "better" but we need to present what the sources say. (TW) |
| 2017-03-21 16:05 | Diff · History | 9 | Reverted to revision 771433578 by Kautilya3 (talk): Again, the term is sourced... (TW) |
| 2016-12-06 14:22 | Diff · History | 8 | Reverted 1 pending edit by 45.115.189.207 to revision 753321642 by Babymissfortune: The term is from the sources |
| 2016-12-02 15:59 | Diff · History | 9 | Reverted 1 pending edit by 122.163.248.88 to revision 751311173 by Bender the Bot: removal of sourced term |
| 2016-10-26 06:27 | Diff · History | -90 | unsourced waffling |
| 2016-10-25 16:54 | Diff · History | 1 | Reverted 1 edit by Vamshi thakur (talk): Revert unsourced changes of a POV nature. (TW) |
| 2016-09-26 10:58 | Diff · History | 8 | Reverted 1 pending edit by 27.60.92.205 to revision 740237220 by GrahamHardy: The term is from the sources |
| 2016-05-24 19:43 | Diff · History | 8 | Reverted 1 edit by 43.224.157.11 (talk): Revert removal of sourced. (TW) |
| 2016-05-21 17:54 | Diff · History | 9 | Reverted 1 edit by 117.212.229.216 (talk): Revert removal of sourced content. (TW) |
| 2016-03-26 20:32 | Diff · History | 46 | →Demolition: + links |
| 2016-03-16 14:50 | Diff · History | 9 | Reverted 1 pending edit by 1.23.213.11 to revision 705960950 by John of Reading: The term is from the sources |
| 2016-02-04 05:07 | Diff · History | 9 | Reverted 1 edit by 113.157.200.149 (talk): The term is well sourced. (TW) |
| 2016-01-24 17:43 | Diff · History | 9 | Reverted 1 pending edit by 43.225.194.6 to revision 701414560 by GSS-1987: Definitely not a typo fix. The term is sourced. |
| 2015-12-24 10:01 | Diff · History | 9 | Reverted 1 pending edit by 125.16.138.145 to revision 696477374 by Dongar Kathorekar: The sentence is not calling the mob militant, but the groups. Also, it is sourced. |
| 2015-12-06 12:30 | Diff · History | 650 | Reverted 3 pending edits by 182.77.35.241 to revision 691985400 by Yogee23 revert removal of sourced information |
| 2015-08-05 19:27 | Diff · History | 9 | Reverted 1 edit by 117.200.120.148 (talk): Revert unexplained deletion. (TW) |
| 2015-07-31 17:28 | Diff · History | -1 | Undid revision 673933669 by 115.187.63.169 (talk) Revert spelling error |
| 2015-07-05 17:48 | Diff · History | -48 | Reverted to revision 669674690 by Vanamonde93 (talk): Revert unsourced changes. (TW) |
| 2015-07-02 19:21 | Diff · History | -78 | Reverted 1 edit by 78.147.133.171 (talk): Please provide a reliable source for this addition. (TW) |
| 2015-07-02 15:18 | Diff · History | -84 | Reverted to revision 667088384 by 50.200.189.58 (talk): Please provide a reliable source for the addition you wish to make. (TW) |
| 2014-12-08 17:00 | Diff · History | 92 | (reverted) add merge tag |
| 2014-11-22 20:50 | Diff · History | -7 | →2010 Court Verdict: no editorializing |
| 2014-11-22 20:47 | Diff · History | -79 | →See also: Not relevant. |
| 2014-10-04 05:40 | Diff · History | -442 | Reverted 1 edit by Sirole123 (talk): Revert test? (TW) |
| 2014-08-14 05:25 | Diff · History | -5 | Reverted 1 edit by 122.177.63.249 (talk): Revert good faith; "Rama" is correct. . (TW) |
| 2014-06-23 17:04 | Diff · History | 0 | Per recent move |
All times are in UTC.