Jump to content

A Rape on Campus: Revision history


For any version listed below, click on its date to view it. For more help, see Help:Page history and Help:Edit summary. (cur) = difference from current version, (prev) = difference from preceding version, m = minor edit, → = section edit, ← = automatic edit summary

(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

9 August 2024

8 August 2024

18 July 2024

3 July 2024

25 May 2024

23 May 2024

20 April 2024

10 April 2024

8 March 2024

19 February 2024

17 February 2024

16 February 2024

28 December 2023

13 November 2023

10 November 2023

12 October 2023

15 September 2023

3 August 2023

1 August 2023

31 July 2023

30 July 2023

25 July 2023

  • curprev 08:3708:37, 25 July 2023Mathglot talk contribs 145,106 bytes −11 Undid revision 1167023564 by 35.139.154.158 (talk) Unless you dispute that the quotation enclosed within double quotes is *not* what they actually said, (in which case it should be removed) you cannot add your personal opinion about what they said within the quotation itself, or change it in any way. If you object to the quotation being in the article, please raise it on the Talk page. undo Tag: Undo
  • curprev 06:1606:16, 25 July 202335.139.154.158 talk 145,117 bytes +11 →‎Accuser scrutinized: "its consultant" makes it sounds like he's a regular legal expert for ABC, but there's no indication of that....also adding two [sic]s, one for "if she allegedly lied"...because that's an overuse of "allegedly"; it should just be "if she lied". And if she lied, the men (even though the quote only refers to one) in question aren't perpetrators, by definition, so "perpetrator" needs a [sic] too undo Tag: Reverted

6 July 2023

5 May 2023

30 April 2023

25 April 2023

17 April 2023

15 April 2023

29 March 2023

28 March 2023

7 March 2023

3 February 2023

30 January 2023

14 January 2023

27 November 2022

23 November 2022

14 November 2022

30 October 2022

8 October 2022

29 September 2022

22 September 2022

8 September 2022

4 September 2022

3 September 2022

24 August 2022

  • curprev 08:0308:03, 24 August 2022Mathglot talk contribs 145,246 bytes +12 Undid good faith revision 1106348914 by Benmite (talk). No, because Reuters (and others) reported that a jury found that "Erdely was found liable of actual malice, a key element in libel law", and that Rolling Stone was held liable for defamation. But your concern for POV editing is laudable, so keep it up, and don't shy from removing words like 'defamatory' in articles where you think it is not appropriate. undo Tag: Undo
(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)