User contributions for 95.145.158.20

22 January 2020

• 20:1520:15, 22 January 2020 diff hist +203 Scientia potentia est →Negative
• 20:0520:05, 22 January 2020 diff hist +48 Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia →Objectivity is impossible even with the mix of anarchal (largeness), democratic (public interest), and bureacratic (dictation from the staff) influences
• 20:0420:04, 22 January 2020 diff hist +667 Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia →Objectivity is impossible even with the mix of anarchal (largeness), democratic (public interest), and bureacratic (dictation from the staff) influences
• 19:5819:58, 22 January 2020 diff hist +334 Scientia potentia est →Negative
• 19:3919:39, 22 January 2020 diff hist +4 Scientia potentia est →Alternative interpretations
• 19:3819:38, 22 January 2020 diff hist +5 Scientia potentia est →Alternative interpretations
• 19:3319:33, 22 January 2020 diff hist +576 Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia →Objectivity is impossible even with the mix of anarchal (largeness), democratic (public interest), and bureacratic (dictation from the staff) influences
• 19:2419:24, 22 January 2020 diff hist +167 Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia →Objectivity is impossible even with the mix of anarchal (largeness), democratic (public interest), and bureacratic (dictation from the staff) influences
• 19:2119:21, 22 January 2020 diff hist +25 Scientia potentia est →Alternative interpretations
• 19:1919:19, 22 January 2020 diff hist +495 Scientia potentia est Added some alternative interpretations with sources
• 18:4918:49, 22 January 2020 diff hist +411 Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia reply
• 18:3118:31, 22 January 2020 diff hist +288 Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia →Objectivity is impossible even with the mix of anarchal (largeness), democratic (public interest), and bureacratic (dictation from the staff) influences
• 18:2918:29, 22 January 2020 diff hist −40 Scientia potentia est No edit summary
• 18:2618:26, 22 January 2020 diff hist +198 Scientia potentia est Rv for no justification other than poor tag. Please if its fine teach me how. Please if it's not give an explanation. The argument is not about the matter itself and ignores the gist of the complaint. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_be_rude
• 18:1918:19, 22 January 2020 diff hist +502 Talk:Kiki Trick No edit summary
• 18:0218:02, 22 January 2020 diff hist +1,864 User talk:Kung Fu Man No edit summary

21 January 2020

• 18:1618:16, 21 January 2020 diff hist +318 User talk:Crossroads →Personal attack against you on Talk:TERF
• 15:4115:41, 21 January 2020 diff hist +199 Scientia potentia est No edit summary
• 15:3715:37, 21 January 2020 diff hist +1,330 Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia →The encyclical that anyone could have edited
• 15:2815:28, 21 January 2020 diff hist +21 Abel Azcona Undid revision 936876132 by Lolay1983 (talk) Rv. Any complaint is valid. In respects, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_no Wikipedia:Concise on one hand, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information on the other hand (of which I'm guilty; see "Wikipedia is not a democracy") but it feels like a bureaucracy today too. Tag: Undo
• 15:1515:15, 21 January 2020 diff hist −5 Postmodernism No edit summary
• 15:1515:15, 21 January 2020 diff hist +844 Postmodernism {{bias|1=This article is marked as bias because the anonymous person who added the tag does not believe it meets Wikipedia:NPOV, specifically from a linguistic (backed up by Wikipedia:NPOV dispute While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased. " Some viewpoints, although not presented as facts, can be given undue attention and space compared to others", and " (see my <!-- explanation)
• 15:0615:06, 21 January 2020 diff hist +567 Criticism of postmodernism Undid revision 936815930 by Crossroads (talk) Still you do not elaborate why it is notable sufficiently. Neutrality also takes into account systematic bias; conformity issues. See also Criticism of Wikipedia. You also did not consider the point art vs. science to meet what I felt. I understand it is coldly, 'not reliably sourced'. But please tell me what it is. Also "Be bold", Also should be no excuse for your own obscurantism Tag: Undo