Jump to content

Buttergate: 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)

27 April 2024

22 January 2024

15 December 2023

4 August 2023

4 July 2023

28 February 2023

23 February 2023

17 January 2023

12 January 2023

20 November 2022

19 November 2022

18 November 2022

7 October 2022

4 October 2022

30 September 2022

29 September 2022

27 September 2022

  • curprev 15:4415:44, 27 September 2022Nosfer ariel65 talk contribs 9,131 bytes −205 Fair enough, I think the timeline is relevant. I just don’t think it’s due to Charlebois’ tweet, which had only 12 replies and fewer than 50 views. There is also no reference about the tweet causing the scandal, but rather article that followed up. I also believe it’s an overreach to call Van Rosendal tweet’s viral, since it only had 100 replies. undo Tags: Visual edit Mobile edit Mobile web edit
  • curprev 05:3505:35, 27 September 2022CT55555 talk contribs 9,336 bytes +768 I don't agree to delete the whole section. It's relevant. By all means edit/improve, but don't delete the whole section. The timeline is relevant in this article. I wrote most of this and don't have any connection to any of the people, so it's not "self promotion". Undid revision 1112614707 by Nosfer ariel65 (talk) undo
  • curprev 05:3305:33, 27 September 2022Nosfer ariel65 talk contribs 8,568 bytes +8 Reorganizing content. Vahan Rosendal was the first person to bring this story forwards, and should lead the section. Previously, Charlebois was edited as the lead, but his opinion came after Van Roosendal. The wiki made it seem as if Charlebois was the one to uncover the buttrergate scandal undo Tags: Visual edit Mobile edit Mobile web edit
  • curprev 05:3005:30, 27 September 2022Nosfer ariel65 talk contribs 8,560 bytes −768 This timeline seems like self-promotion. It makes it purposely seems as if Charlebois created a viral Trent’s. The actual tweet from Charlebois only had 12 replies. The CBC article was the actual kindle of the scandal, but that article never mentioned Charlebois. There is simply no proof nor indication that there was a connection. Quite the opposite, Charlebois’ tweet was barely seen by anyone. In any event, the timeline is irrelevant and just serves the purpose of promoting individuals here undo Tags: Visual edit Mobile edit Mobile web edit
  • curprev 05:2105:21, 27 September 2022Nosfer ariel65 talk contribs 9,328 bytes −415 There is no evidence that the term was first coined by Charlebois undo Tags: Visual edit Mobile edit Mobile web edit

5 September 2022

4 September 2022

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