Jump to content

Related changes

Enter a page name to see changes on pages linked to or from that page. (To see members of a category, enter Category:Name of category). Changes to pages on your Watchlist are shown in bold with a green bullet. See more at Help:Related changes.

Recent changes optionsShow last 50 | 100 | 250 | 500 changes in last 1 | 3 | 7 | 14 | 30 days
Hide registered users | Hide unregistered users | Hide my edits | Show bots | Hide minor edits | Show page categorization | Show Wikidata | Hide probably good edits
Show new changes starting from 02:11, 27 June 2025
 
Page name:
List of abbreviations (help):
D
Edit made at Wikidata
r
Edit flagged by ORES
N
New page
m
Minor edit
b
Bot edit
(±123)
Page byte size change
Temporarily watched page

26 June 2025

25 June 2025

24 June 2025

21 June 2025

20 June 2025

  • diffhist Violence 23:45 −13 Parthinax talk contribs (removed "or property". There is no reasonable basis to suggest that damage to property and damage to human beings should be considered equivalent. Legal precedent explicitly distinguishes here between damage to property versus damage to humans. We should not be equivocating between "property" and human life.)
  • diffhist m The Economist 10:52 +1 Tomatoswoop talk contribs (minor grammar)
  • diffhist The Economist 10:51 +327 Tomatoswoop talk contribs (added hatnote for misuse of citation & explanatory comment for future editors. I keep finding misused sources in this article, so the problem may extend further, I haven't checked everything.) Tag: Visual edit: Switched
  • diffhist The Economist 10:36 −29 Tomatoswoop talk contribs ("depth" as a reason for brand associations also not in source. (Is the economist known for more depth articles than other news & current affairs mags? the new yorker, new republic, newsweek, Harpers, the spectator, prospect, national review, etc.?) Is this whole article like this? Someone's opinion and vibes with sources added alongside to give it the appearance of factuality?) Tag: Visual edit
  • diffhist The Economist 10:21 −851 Tomatoswoop talk contribs (yet again, claims not in source, seems to be a persistent problem with this article. (Incidentally, on this particular claim, there are sources already in the article that claim exactly the opposite). Rather than weigh in with a claim to the opposite wrt bias/objectivity, it seems better not to make a statement about it in the lede at all, it's obviously contested at the *least* though.) Tag: Visual edit
  • diffhist The Economist 06:22 +934 AnomieBOT talk contribs (Rescuing orphaned refs ("isnewspaper" from rev 1296453716; "Iber-2019" from rev 1296453716))
  • diffhist The Economist 04:15 +316 Tomatoswoop talk contribs Tag: Visual edit
  • diffhist The Economist 03:39 +1 Tomatoswoop talk contribs (*as much a newspaper as, I meant to write. Oh to be able to edit edit summaries...)
  • diffhist The Economist 03:35 −8 Tomatoswoop talk contribs (I walk the line. The article need not choose. ....I mean it's as much a magazine as the news statesman or private eye or the week or the Spectator or Tribune is really, but hey, porque no los dos! And may the lord spare us from this causing any future edit wars...) Tag: Visual edit: Switched
  • diffhist The Economist 03:07 −1,118 Tomatoswoop talk contribs (also poorly sourced (and strangely linked, almost to make a point). Maybe it's best just to leave "format" and "type" out of it altogether, it's really not that important) Tag: Visual edit
  • diffhist The Economist 02:57 +24 Tomatoswoop talk contribs (→Tone and voice: Last one of these. The one source there that did express a view expressed the opposite one that was previously stated so... Now the article reflects its sources) Tag: Visual edit
  • diffhist The Economist 02:47 −145 Tomatoswoop talk contribs (→Tone and voice: yet again, the cited material isn't actually in the sources. One just repeated that the economist calls itself that, another totally off topic. This is so pointless but still, how silly! Someone must have '''really'''' cared about this!) Tag: Visual edit
  • diffhist The Economist 02:36 −227 Tomatoswoop talk contribs (you know... I'm only even looking at this because of a slightly weird invisible comment that seemed strangely insistent, but now here I am.... Can't find any source for this claim either, and the given source just sends you a link to a database which classes it as a "journal,magazine"! The house of cards from a 15 year old pointless edit war is falling down! 😂) Tag: Visual edit
  • diffhist The Economist 02:28 −1,526 Tomatoswoop talk contribs (So I can't actually find any source for this claim that doesn't point back here, so I think it's quite probably just made up? Are News Magazines / News Weeklies even legally distinct from Weekly Newspapers in the US or UK at all? idk, but I can't find anything about it...) Tag: Visual edit
  • diffhist m The Economist 02:26 −46 Tomatoswoop talk contribs (removing wikilink to an 1800s law no longer in force) Tag: Visual edit
  • diffhist The Economist 02:24 +344 Tomatoswoop talk contribs (→Tone and voice: added "not in source" tags. The source for being "legally classified" as a newpaper in the UK and the US is this is just a seemingly fairly random section of pages that obliquely refer to the name of some legal entities associated with the publication. If they named their company "Economist potatoes group" that wouldn't make them legally classified as farmers by the UK and US government! 😅. The other source also bears no potatoes (or tubers)) Tag: Visual edit: Switched
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChangesLinked/Homeboyz_Interactive"