21:2921:29, 29 December 2023diffhist+236 m
Bunk'd
Undid revision 1192524626 by Amaury (talk) Stated reason for this revert was that the non-renewal is already mentioned at the end of Production section. While this is true, 1) by exorcising this a reader will have no idea that the series is no longer in production until reading the entire article, and 2) even if it is a valid reason, it is inconsistent with including the 2022 renewal text here (which is also mentioned in Production)Tags: UndoReverted
19:0419:04, 23 December 2023diffhist0 m
Hypergamy
moving footnote to the end of the paragraph so another user will understand that this IS correctly sourced, from the same link as the rest of the paragraph.
19:0019:00, 23 December 2023diffhist+412
Hypergamy
Undid revision 1191466063 by WikiLinuz (talk) None of this is my opinion; it *is* all from the source. I remind you of the instructions Wikipedia puts on the top of each revision undo: "explain the reason in the edit summary." A *statement* that you consider it unsubstantiated is not an *explanation*. You've reverted 3 times today - and again, one update was an update of a reference link, how is that "opinion?" -- you must stop nowTag: Undo
17:2817:28, 23 December 2023diffhist+11
Asher Angel
Undid revision 1190337526 by Amaury (talk) No explanation given for revision, no stated reason. This is a violation of wikipedia requirements highlighted at the top of every undo confirmation page: "explain the reason in the edit summary"Tags: UndoReverted
17:2017:20, 23 December 2023diffhist+45 m
School of Rock (TV series)
Undid revision 1191402837 by Amaury (talk) That Dionne Kirschner is supported by imdb: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0456950/ User "Amaury" keeps reverting evidence-supported updates on many wikipedia pages without even providing an explanation for their change (unlike those whose changes he reverts)Tags: UndoReverted
17:1117:11, 23 December 2023diffhist+286 m
Laura Ingraham
Undid revision 1191417509 by Amaury (talk) One is not allowed to undo others work on Wikipedia based upon purely personal concepts of "relevance." The information language comes from a major national media outlet, and their decision to publish it trumps one anonymous internet user's personal pecadillos about these factsTag: Undo
12:3012:30, 23 December 2023diffhist−33 m
Hypergamy
→Research: I have attempted to remove anything which could be remotely considered "opinion" from my previous revisions I've just restored, although I can only a guess because user WikiLinuz didn't elaborate. My 2nd revision merely changed the reference link to non-paywalled source of the Saint-Paul's paper, declaring that revision "opinion" made no sense. If this user still sees "opinion," please conduct a targeted edit WITH EXPLANATION next time, not a blanket undo?Tag: Reverted
12:1812:18, 23 December 2023diffhist+445 m
Hypergamy
Undid revision 1191348293 by WikiLinuz (talk) Most of the first edit reverted could not be reasonably construed as "opinion," and furthermore the second edit also reverted by this user was simply a change of link to the exact same research paper source, just on a site less hidden behind paywall; the stated reason for revising was completely inapplicable to that revision.Tags: UndoReverted
12:0812:08, 23 December 2023diffhist+286 m
Laura Ingraham
→Economics: This is restoring some of the text that I originally entered on 04:18, 29 April 2022, user Jgeorge20 reverted without explanation later that day, and then user Fakescientist8000 undid that revision, only to have someone else again remove some of the text in a general edit later, with no explanation why. This text is *clearly* supported by the source link, as well as original source material on twitter.Tag: Reverted
22 December 2023
16:4716:47, 22 December 2023diffhist+153 m
Hypergamy
→References: Changed URL to source less hidden behind a paywall. Note that the original author who added the text citing this paper did not cite any content of the paper not contained in the single-paragraph abstract of the original length. I hypothesize the original author of this section may not have even read the paper, just this abstract?Tags: RevertedVisual edit
16:4216:42, 22 December 2023diffhist+292 m
Hypergamy
→Research: I personally agree with the existing footnote disclaimer that these claims are "dubious," but chose to leave them all intact, only making two adjustments: 1) correcting simple misspelling (!), 2) adding/tweaking a couple words, plus appending a new sentence at the end of the paragraph which drills into the actual detail of Sain-Paul's paper to elaborate that he is essentially only proposing a Theory ("mathematical model") for marriage/mating choices, this is not true "Research."Tags: RevertedVisual edit
19:5219:52, 4 August 2022diffhist+24 m
U.S. Senate career of Joe Biden
Undoing Leontroopers edits of 6/22/22, they were not helpful. reverting to earlier wording adds detail that his daughter was an infant, and provides context that he sons were also involved in the accident. Conversely, the alternative language inserted then, "his surviving sons" implies there was a son to him that did not survive, (that was killed in the crash).Tags: RevertedVisual edit
20:3720:37, 20 February 2021diffhist+205 m
Craig Shirley
Removed the claim that the four Reagan books were "bestsellers," since the publisher does not claim they were even when explictily listing them & despite singling out another work "December 1941" for achieving this status. Added reference to this title with substantiated status to the summary.Tag: Visual edit
20:2220:22, 20 February 2021diffhist−34 m
Craig Shirley
stipulation that he is "frequently sought after" for his television appearances is unestablished and undefined in meaning, adding nothing to the information contentTag: Visual edit
20:2720:27, 7 August 2019diffhist−11 m
Shays's Rebellion
Use of adjective "kafkaesque" adds nothing to the factual presentation, but strongly adds only the author's personal opinion about those who erected this memorial years later, and who are not otherwise even relevant, referenced, or even identified in this article
15:5015:50, 23 April 2019diffhist−437 m
Nvidia Drive
→Drive PX: Removing erroneous statement that this hardware was used by Toyota per GTC 2017 announcement, because hardware specs in Nvidia press release make it clear Toyota was actually using he DRIVE PX Xavier announced 4 months earlier at CES 2017: https://nvidianews.nvidia.com/news/nvidia-and-toyota-collaborate-to-accelerate-market-introduction-of-autonomous-carsTag: references removed
15:4315:43, 23 April 2019diffhist+134 m
Nvidia Drive
Removed entry saying this was model used by Toyota -- source cited was misinterpreted, while details in Nvidia press release make clear what the actual specific variant used by Toyota was. Leaving clarification in this section given misunderstandings created by original entry & repeated elsewhere on internet, citing this page.