Top edits to an article
All edits made to a page by one user, in chronological order.
| Article | User talk:Cryptic C62/Cold fusion (Log · Page History) |
| User | Abd (Edit Counter· Top Edits) |
| Total edits | 93 |
| Minor edits | 8 (8.6%) |
| (Semi-)automated edits | 0 (0%) |
| Reverted edits | 2 (2.2%) |
| atbe1 | 0.8 |
| Added (bytes)2 | 117,630 |
| Deleted (bytes) | -202,011 |
Minor edits
·
8 (8.6%)
Major edits
·
85 (91.4%)
(Semi-)automated edits
·
0 (0%)
Manual edits
·
93 (100%)
Reverted edits
·
2 (2.2%)
Unreverted edits
·
91 (97.8%)
1 Average time between edits (days)
2 Added text is any positive addition that wasn't reverted (approximate)
| Date | Links | Size | Edit summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2009-08-16 02:40 | Diff · History | 4 | →Should proposed theories explaining cold fusion be mentioned in Cold fusion?: link |
| 2009-08-16 02:39 | Diff · History | 0 | →Should proposed theories explaining cold fusion be mentioned in Cold fusion?: oops |
| 2009-08-16 02:39 | Diff · History | 8 | →Should proposed theories explaining cold fusion be mentioned in Cold fusion?: format |
| 2009-08-16 02:25 | Diff · History | 2,880 | →Should proposed theories explaining cold fusion be mentioned in Cold fusion?: the sources are reliable to show notability of a theory. |
| 2009-07-20 16:09 | Diff · History | 2,000 | →Should proposed theories explaining cold fusion be mentioned in Cold fusion?: forking is generally a good idea with this. |
| 2009-07-18 05:30 | Diff · History | -201,806 | I'll accept setting this aside, though I think a simple conclusion could be made, it doesn't have to be a recommendation of specific text. |
| 2009-07-17 15:08 | Diff · History | 102 | →Fourth try: fmt, clarify. |
| 2009-07-17 15:04 | Diff · History | 2,596 | →Fourth try: original issue was very simple. Please resolve the original issue, Cryptic. |
| 2009-07-12 16:40 | Diff · History | 1,562 | →Fourth try: considerations |
| 2009-07-06 05:05 | Diff · History | 667 | →Fourth try: It's implied in the 2007 source for Miles' statement. |
| 2009-07-06 01:18 | Diff · History | 1,035 | →Third try: new attempt. |
| 2009-07-05 03:56 | Diff · History | 17 | →Third try: better source for accelerated patent application due to age. |
| 2009-07-05 03:48 | Diff · History | 1,427 | →Third try: mashing up different things here. |
| 2009-07-04 23:56 | Diff · History | 1,348 | →Third try: I don't think there is such a patent. |
| 2009-07-04 13:26 | Diff · History | -1 | →Third try: fix itals |
| 2009-07-04 13:25 | Diff · History | 2,630 | →Third try: and this shows exactly why synthesis is deprecated. |
| 2009-07-04 02:24 | Diff · History | 34 | →Third try: clarify. this is about rejecting experimental results because of major theoretical objections. |
| 2009-07-04 01:59 | Diff · History | 1,460 | →Third try: those topics were introduced by Enric's proposed text. |
| 2009-07-02 16:06 | Diff · History | 3,127 | →Third try: the substance is correct, but synthesized away from the source, it can be done better. |
| 2009-07-02 15:47 | Diff · History | 1,729 | →Third try: slipping by *might* be cogent for 2004, but not for 2008; more likely it's that the patent wasn't for cold fusion itself, but for a material that also has other possible uses. |
| 2009-07-02 15:33 | Diff · History | 1,555 | →Second try: Telekinesis, perhaps? |
| 2009-07-01 16:35 | Diff · History | 638 | →Mention of patents: the patent is for an electrode design, claimed to increase reliability and quantity of excess heat. |
| 2009-07-01 16:12 | Diff · History | 1,274 | →Mention of patents: r to KDP |
| 2009-07-01 01:53 | Diff · History | 1,849 | →Mention of patents: the patent claims generation of heat, "excess energy," not fusion. |
| 2009-06-30 22:24 | Diff · History | 222 | →Mention of patents: I don't see that as implied, au contraire. |
| 2009-06-30 19:52 | Diff · History | 535 | →Mention of patents: should get the alternate text. |
| 2009-06-30 19:42 | Diff · History | 571 | →Mention of patents: Novel thinking, to be sure. what's unclear about claim 14? |
| 2009-06-30 18:35 | Diff · History | 1,471 | →Mention of patents: cite WP:OR. WP:SYNTH doesn't contradict this at all. |
| 2009-06-30 18:17 | Diff · History | 273 | →Mention of patents: Actually, V, no. |
| 2009-06-30 15:17 | Diff · History | 898 | →Mention of patents: actual precedent instead of just assertion of guideline without reference and specific applicability? |
| 2009-06-30 13:54 | Diff · History | 135 | →Mention of patents: strike incorrect comment, note claim 14. |
| 2009-06-30 13:50 | Diff · History | 1,438 | →Mention of patents: this is a general issue around apparent contradictions of secondary source in primary source. |
| 2009-06-30 02:28 | Diff · History | 32 | →Should proposed theories explaining cold fusion be mentioned in Cold fusion?: collapse until this topic is taken up. |
| 2009-06-30 02:26 | Diff · History | 200 | →Mention of patents: NET isn't the source, the patent is. This is a primary source. |
| 2009-06-29 22:09 | Diff · History | 7,814 | →Should proposed theories explaining cold fusion be mentioned in the article?: one more try. Same text, basically, but two collapse boxes. |
| 2009-06-29 17:23 | Diff · History | 9,054 | →Should proposed theories explaining cold fusion be mentioned in the article?: new section |
| 2009-06-29 13:06 | Diff · History | 249 | →Regroup: I see agreement on #2. Cryptic, can you note this and open up the next discussion? |
| 2009-06-23 16:45 | Diff · History | 357 | →Regroup: r to KDP |
| 2009-06-23 14:19 | Diff · History | 2,756 | →Regroup: I think a conclusion is ripe here, absent objection acceptable to Cryptic. |
| 2009-06-21 15:28 | Diff · History | 487 | →Should the Naturwissenschaften article be used as a source?: on the basic issue. |
| 2009-06-21 15:23 | Diff · History | 1,957 | →Should the Naturwissenschaften article be used as a source?: the scholarly acceptance of a paper does not enter into RS considerations directly. RS establishes notability justifying mention somewhere. How is a separate question.. |
| 2009-06-21 15:03 | Diff · History | 5,299 | →Should the Naturwissenschaften article be used as a source?: notability of 2005 Naturwiss. publication is low. Why it's low. |
| 2009-06-20 03:57 | Diff · History | 1,618 | →Should the Naturwissenschaften article be used as a source?: different sources for different claims. "Fact" requires the highest standard. "Claim" requires much less, only notability. |
| 2009-06-20 03:18 | Diff · History | 17 | →Should the Naturwissenschaften article be used as a source?: add |
| 2009-06-20 03:17 | Diff · History | 2,246 | →Should the Naturwissenschaften article be used as a source?: the SPAWAR neutron findings have aroused wide interest. |
| 2009-06-19 21:43 | Diff · History | 61 | →Should the Naturwissenschaften article be used as a source?: refine |
| 2009-06-19 21:41 | Diff · History | 4 | →Should the Naturwissenschaften article be used as a source?: fmt |
| 2009-06-19 21:41 | Diff · History | 3,029 | →Should the Naturwissenschaften article be used as a source?: Should this be taken up next? Personally, I'd prefer simultaneous threads, or this could take forever. |
| 2009-06-18 17:55 | Diff · History | 119 | →Refocus: That's what we did. |
| 2009-06-18 13:26 | Diff · History | 419 | →Refocus: silence is not consent. this whole discussion is much more on-point in another section. |
| 2009-06-18 11:20 | Diff · History | 1,043 | →Refocus: let's move on, close the door on the coatrack in the closet, it can be opened again if someone actually makes a counterclaim. |
| 2009-06-18 11:13 | Diff · History | 1,714 | →Refocus: the blackout is well-known. |
| 2009-06-17 21:45 | Diff · History | 4,383 | (reverted) →Why characterize the journal?: about the hypothetical claim of "fringe." Publication in Naturwissenschaften is strong evidence this isn't fringe research, even if it is remarkable or extraordinary. |
| 2009-06-17 16:44 | Diff · History | 492 | →Why characterize the journal?: agree |
| 2009-06-17 14:05 | Diff · History | 899 | →Naturwissenschaften a "Life Sciences" journal?: longer characterization not necessary. |
| 2009-06-17 13:46 | Diff · History | 1 | →Participation: sp |
| 2009-06-17 13:43 | Diff · History | 3,374 | →Participation: point to evidence re Rothwell and ban. Bottom line: it's up to Cryptic whether he permits this or not. |
| 2009-06-17 02:18 | Diff · History | 130 | →Why characterize the journal?: New Scientist has editors. |
| 2009-06-17 02:14 | Diff · History | 1,135 | →Participation: cryptic, your choice if this comment stays. |
| 2009-06-16 22:56 | Diff · History | 2,069 | →Why characterize the journal?: what's not true? |
| 2009-06-16 19:23 | Diff · History | 1,062 | →Why characterize the journal?: This is a non-issue, because we aren't depending on Naturwissenschaften as our source. |
| 2009-06-16 14:06 | Diff · History | 1,073 | →Why characterize the journal?: without a raising of specific related issues, i.e., absent objection, move closure of this section. |
| 2009-06-15 11:06 | Diff · History | 921 | →Why characterize the journal?: thanks, Enric. |
| 2009-06-15 01:48 | Diff · History | 376 | →Why characterize the journal?: Yeah, that's what I thought. |
| 2009-06-14 22:35 | Diff · History | 167 | →Why characterize the journal?: add another to the list. |
| 2009-06-14 22:30 | Diff · History | 1,017 | →Why characterize the journal?: eigenfactor and journal-ranking for Naturwissenschaften and EPJ-AP |
| 2009-06-14 22:02 | Diff · History | 208 | →Why characterize the journal?: impact factor is of interest, but not of high relevance here. |
| 2009-06-14 19:34 | Diff · History | 70 | →Why mention the journal?: sign it |
| 2009-06-14 19:34 | Diff · History | 182 | →Why mention the journal?: the source. |
| 2009-06-14 19:31 | Diff · History | 4,269 | →Why characterize the journal?: I think it's obvious. |
| 2009-06-14 13:02 | Diff · History | 1,926 | →Mention of patents: I don't think we need to mediate this. But if someone objects.... |
| 2009-06-14 12:45 | Diff · History | 2,974 | →Why characterize the journal?: not a "biology journal." |
| 2009-06-13 22:39 | Diff · History | 1,303 | →The text in context: add text in current context, section |
| 2009-06-13 16:41 | Diff · History | 894 | →Naturwissenschaften a "Life Sciences" journal?: discussion of how to characterize is premature. Paper is historically significant, per media sources. |
| 2009-06-13 16:31 | Diff · History | 1,452 | →Naturwissenschaften a "Life Sciences" journal?: look at Schulze pages |
| 2009-06-13 16:01 | Diff · History | 2,234 | →Naturwissenschaften a "Life Sciences" journal?: open up subsections to lay foundation for debate. |
| 2009-06-13 01:06 | Diff · History | 202 | →Moving forward with mediation: note start of section on Naturwissenschaften |
| 2009-06-13 01:02 | Diff · History | 3,197 | →Naturwissenschaften a "Life Sciences" journal?: set up section on this, defining the problem, and with initial justification of removal. |
| 2009-06-10 18:45 | Diff · History | 495 | →Content issues: add link to unanswered Talk discussion of edit removing "life sciences" |
| 2009-06-10 18:32 | Diff · History | 46 | →Content issues: add cite to journal description |
| 2009-06-10 18:15 | Diff · History | 76 | →Content issues: add issue about Naturwissenschaften, since it was brought up above. This one should be easy. |
| 2009-06-10 18:14 | Diff · History | 568 | →Moving forward with mediation: note that I'm not banned. |
| 2009-06-08 13:41 | Diff · History | 738 | →Continue with mediation?: Yes, that's essential. But policy and its application to article text are what we are about here, what else is there an issue about? |
| 2009-06-08 02:12 | Diff · History | 1,244 | →Continue with mediation?: we should proceed. |
| 2009-06-07 13:40 | Diff · History | 855 | →Content issues: respond to V. |
| 2009-06-07 04:15 | Diff · History | 421 | →Content issues: add some refs. |
| 2009-06-06 19:40 | Diff · History | 3,772 | →Participation: I'm increasingly worried about this. I don't know what "respect the consensus" means, and it could mean something that I can't agree to. |
| 2009-06-06 02:24 | Diff · History | 1,025 | (reverted) →Participation: involved in what? |
| 2009-06-06 02:01 | Diff · History | 1,090 | →What is this mediation about? Is there a specific complaint?: okay. |
| 2009-06-05 23:53 | Diff · History | 1,380 | →Participation: I just read the request for mediation and it seems this is about something trivial, almost moot. |
| 2009-06-05 23:41 | Diff · History | -204 | →Participation: you already did it and I didn't notice.... |
| 2009-06-05 23:40 | Diff · History | 948 | →Participation: not dissatisfied, just puzzled. |
| 2009-06-05 21:58 | Diff · History | 2,410 | →Participation: Thanks, Cryptic. Suggest you move this page to your user space. |
All times are in UTC.