Bishop Hill (blog): Revision history

4 May 2010

• curprev 12:3512:35, 4 May 2010‎ LessHeard vanU talk contribs‎ 3,006 bytes +25‎ Add protection template undo
• curprev 12:3412:34, 4 May 2010‎ LessHeard vanU talk contribs‎ m 2,981 bytes 0‎ Protected Bishop Hill (blog): Edit warring / Content dispute: Talk page discussion / afd / etc. has not abated the revert war. ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite)) undo

3 May 2010

• curprev 21:4321:43, 3 May 2010‎ DarknessShines2 talk contribs‎ 2,981 bytes +495‎ add a bit to this undo
• curprev 21:0821:08, 3 May 2010‎ Yilloslime talk contribs‎ 2,486 bytes −1,503‎ Undid revision 359924958 by Nsaa (talk) per ongoing talkpage dialog. undo
• curprev 21:0421:04, 3 May 2010‎ Nsaa talk contribs‎ 3,989 bytes +1,503‎ Please go through each source and point why they're not covering what this text says. You are removing BBC for c.s. undo

30 April 2010

• curprev 11:1411:14, 30 April 2010‎ KimDabelsteinPetersen talk contribs‎ 2,486 bytes −1,503‎ Reverted to revision 359212186 by Electroshoxcure; rv There you are wrong - the dispute over sources has absolutely diddly-squat to do with an AfD. Read the objections!. using TW undo
• curprev 10:5010:50, 30 April 2010‎ Cla68 talk contribs‎ 3,989 bytes +1,503‎ Only the Delingpole refs seem to be in dispute now that the AfD has closed as "no consensus". This article stays, I think because it was shown that it is notable. undo
• curprev 06:4706:47, 30 April 2010‎ Electroshoxcure talk contribs‎ 2,486 bytes +1‎ No edit summary undo
• curprev 06:1006:10, 30 April 2010‎ Sandstein talk contribs‎ 2,485 bytes −401‎ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bishop Hill (blog) closed as no consensus undo

29 April 2010

• curprev 18:2718:27, 29 April 2010‎ ChrisO~enwiki talk contribs‎ 2,886 bytes −574‎ This isn't "well-cited" at all - it's from a blog (a non-RS) and it's a trivial tangential passing mention which tells us nothing about this blog undo
• curprev 18:2518:25, 29 April 2010‎ DarknessShines2 talk contribs‎ 3,460 bytes +574‎ rv stop removing well cited material undo
• curprev 18:2218:22, 29 April 2010‎ ChrisO~enwiki talk contribs‎ 2,886 bytes −574‎ This addition is not about the blog - it's about a claim made *by* the blog undo
• curprev 18:2018:20, 29 April 2010‎ DarknessShines2 talk contribs‎ 3,460 bytes +574‎ add ref undo
• curprev 17:4117:41, 29 April 2010‎ KimDabelsteinPetersen talk contribs‎ 2,886 bytes −2,805‎ Reverted to revision 359012889 by ChrisO; rv Take it to talk - where this *is* being discussed. The material is not focused on the blog. (ie. coatracking). using TW undo
• curprev 17:2317:23, 29 April 2010‎ Electroshoxcure talk contribs‎ 5,691 bytes +2,805‎ please don't remove cited content from an article at AfD undo
• curprev 07:3207:32, 29 April 2010‎ ChrisO~enwiki talk contribs‎ 2,886 bytes −2,807‎ rm absurd coatracking - none of this tells us anything about the blog undo
• curprev 07:0107:01, 29 April 2010‎ Weakopedia talk contribs‎ 5,693 bytes −27‎ nothing to specify, it's just as the source reported it. specify what you want specified if necessary undo
• curprev 05:3105:31, 29 April 2010‎ Cla68 talk contribs‎ 5,720 bytes +5‎ →‎Mentions in the mainstream press: gramma undo
• curprev 05:3005:30, 29 April 2010‎ Cla68 talk contribs‎ 5,715 bytes −17‎ →‎Mentions in the mainstream press: NPOV the description undo
• curprev 05:2805:28, 29 April 2010‎ Yilloslime talk contribs‎ 5,732 bytes +112‎ If this cruft must be hear--and I for one don't think it should be--lets at least put in its own section, and make clear that none of them actually discuss the blog in depth undo
• curprev 04:3504:35, 29 April 2010‎ Cla68 talk contribs‎ 5,620 bytes +3‎ clarify undo
• curprev 04:2704:27, 29 April 2010‎ Cla68 talk contribs‎ 5,617 bytes +718‎ more, why were these removed? undo
• curprev 04:2304:23, 29 April 2010‎ Cla68 talk contribs‎ 4,899 bytes +511‎ another. why was this removed? undo
• curprev 04:1604:16, 29 April 2010‎ Cla68 talk contribs‎ 4,388 bytes +25‎ wording undo
• curprev 04:1604:16, 29 April 2010‎ Cla68 talk contribs‎ 4,363 bytes +478‎ readd reliable source. Why was this removed? undo
• curprev 04:0704:07, 29 April 2010‎ Cla68 talk contribs‎ 3,885 bytes +179‎ why was this ref removed, it's reliable undo
• curprev 01:4701:47, 29 April 2010‎ Cla68 talk contribs‎ 3,706 bytes +23‎ wording undo
• curprev 01:4601:46, 29 April 2010‎ Cla68 talk contribs‎ 3,683 bytes +389‎ add more undo
• curprev 01:4001:40, 29 April 2010‎ Cla68 talk contribs‎ 3,294 bytes +9‎ wording undo
• curprev 01:4001:40, 29 April 2010‎ Cla68 talk contribs‎ 3,285 bytes +1‎ fix undo
• curprev 01:3901:39, 29 April 2010‎ Cla68 talk contribs‎ 3,284 bytes +554‎ readd text and fix it undo
• curprev 01:2701:27, 29 April 2010‎ Yilloslime talk contribs‎ 2,730 bytes −1,950‎ Undid revision 358963062 by Nsaa (talk) the issue isn't sourcing but relevance--these articles aren't actually about the blog and tell us nothing abou undo
• curprev 01:1301:13, 29 April 2010‎ Nsaa talk contribs‎ 4,680 bytes +1,950‎ The added paragraph is backed by http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8595483.stm (NO BLOG), and the third by http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/26/uea_oxburgh_statement undo

28 April 2010

• curprev 20:1720:17, 28 April 2010‎ Guettarda talk contribs‎ 2,730 bytes −1,896‎ rv; merger discussion is still open (and would be unwise to close before AFD); also rm material not about the blog undo
• curprev 19:4019:40, 28 April 2010‎ DarknessShines2 talk contribs‎ 4,626 bytes +1,896‎ Reverted to revision 358896750 by Marknutley; coatrack = not policy, stop removing well sourced material. There is no blp violation either. (TW) undo
• curprev 19:1319:13, 28 April 2010‎ Yilloslime talk contribs‎ 2,730 bytes +95‎ trying to clarify actual role of blog undo
• curprev 19:0019:00, 28 April 2010‎ KimDabelsteinPetersen talk contribs‎ 2,635 bytes −1,991‎ Reverted to revision 358730411 by KimDabelsteinPetersen; rv Same coatracking as before + it still includes BLP material not in citations given.. using TW undo
• curprev 18:5218:52, 28 April 2010‎ DarknessShines2 talk contribs‎ 4,626 bytes +268‎ specified undo
• curprev 18:5018:50, 28 April 2010‎ DarknessShines2 talk contribs‎ 4,358 bytes +1,043‎ add orlowski ref, he makes a lot of the blog i think undo
• curprev 18:4818:48, 28 April 2010‎ DarknessShines2 talk contribs‎ 3,315 bytes +734‎ add bbc ref undo
• curprev 18:4618:46, 28 April 2010‎ DarknessShines2 talk contribs‎ 2,581 bytes −54‎ remove merge tags per talk page consensus undo

27 April 2010

• curprev 21:4521:45, 27 April 2010‎ KimDabelsteinPetersen talk contribs‎ 2,635 bytes −9,820‎ Reverted to revision 358726839 by ChrisO; rv Coatrack and puffing. Including BLP material not in citations given.. using TW undo
• curprev 21:3721:37, 27 April 2010‎ Off2riorob talk contribs‎ 12,455 bytes +9,820‎ Reverted to revision 358726347 by Nsaa; replacing cited content, please discuss instead of blanking cited content. (TW) undo
• curprev 21:2421:24, 27 April 2010‎ ChrisO~enwiki talk contribs‎ 2,635 bytes −9,820‎ How about you discuss the issues on the talk page first before restoring this puff piece? undo
• curprev 21:2221:22, 27 April 2010‎ Nsaa talk contribs‎ 12,455 bytes +9,820‎ Massive removal of sourecd content? Hu? Please take one and one source at a time and NOT before you have established consensus for it at the discussion page undo
• curprev 21:0821:08, 27 April 2010‎ ChrisO~enwiki talk contribs‎ 2,635 bytes −9,820‎ removed coatracked, unreliably sourced etc material undo
• curprev 21:0421:04, 27 April 2010‎ DarknessShines2 talk contribs‎ 12,455 bytes +9,820‎ Reverted to revision 357992969 by Slowjoe17; rv removal of well sourced material. (TW) undo

26 April 2010

• curprev 23:0523:05, 26 April 2010‎ ChrisO~enwiki talk contribs‎ 2,635 bytes +628‎ rescuing ref undo
• curprev 23:0223:02, 26 April 2010‎ Yilloslime talk contribs‎ 2,007 bytes +28‎ →‎External links: +{{reflist}} undo
• curprev 23:0123:01, 26 April 2010‎ ChrisO~enwiki talk contribs‎ 1,979 bytes −10,476‎ rm all undue weight, non-notable etc content undo