A user with 72 edits. Account created on 4 October 2021.
28 July 2023
- 22:2222:22, 28 July 2023 +16 The Omnichord Real Book →Personnel: According to all credits I can find, he’s on that track Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
- 13:2213:22, 28 July 2023 −36 Guero →Critical: A bit unnecessary when the nature of critical evaluation already implies this current Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
- 12:0612:06, 28 July 2023 +445 Talk:Barbie (film) →"critical acclaim" should be changed to "positive reviews" or "generally favorable reviews": Reply Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply
- 12:0412:04, 28 July 2023 +499 Talk:Barbie (film) →"critical acclaim" should be changed to "positive reviews" or "generally favorable reviews": Reply Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply
4 September 2022
6 August 2022
- 20:5220:52, 6 August 2022 −29 m John Frusciante →2002–2007: The Mars Volta, 2004 recordings and Stadium Arcadium: This wording feels smoother and also “help” for the word is an understatement if he played that much
19 July 2022
18 July 2022
- 04:1804:18, 18 July 2022 −395 Sith →Ideology: Arguably irrelevant to ideology. Move it somewhere else in article or scrap it because it’s completely unsourced. Anyone could make that up unless i’m mistaken please source if it’s specific historical claims. Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
16 July 2022
- 01:2001:20, 16 July 2022 −230 The Stand I don’t understand why that sentence is thrown in. The lead is a summation of information presented later in the article typically, yet information on what reviewers liked or disliked is not presented in the article. It reads like original research possibly. Also, the specifics of what reviewers liked about the book is more inflating of the lead than necessary when it’s recognition was already listed prior. Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
15 July 2022
- 13:2013:20, 15 July 2022 −31 The Dark Tower (series) I can’t find with the source where it says the reason why he wants to rewrite it. Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
11 July 2022
- 20:1720:17, 11 July 2022 +207 Talk:1632 (novel) →Legacy section needs work: new section current Tag: New topic
9 July 2022
8 July 2022
- 20:1020:10, 8 July 2022 +44 m The Afterman: Descension →Critical: Summarizing the response
- 19:4219:42, 8 July 2022 +618 Talk:Sith →Major cleanup in order: new section Tag: New topic
7 July 2022
- 04:2504:25, 7 July 2022 −1 m Talk:Wolfenstein →The old blood as a loose remake
- 04:2404:24, 7 July 2022 +197 Talk:Wolfenstein →The old blood as a loose remake
- 03:1903:19, 7 July 2022 +615 Talk:Wolfenstein →The old blood as a loose remake: new section Tag: New topic
- 03:0903:09, 7 July 2022 −18 m Wolfenstein →Wolfenstein: The Old Blood (2015): more coherent phrasing
- 03:0403:04, 7 July 2022 +24 Injustice 2 Whenever awards are mentioned in an article, I usually see that reflected in the lead. Perhaps my phrasing is too simplistic but it is very similar to other articles in which games have received awards or have been nominated
6 July 2022
- 19:4119:41, 6 July 2022 +5 Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus →Gameplay: Adding this to new colossus to match with the new order page
5 July 2022
- 12:2412:24, 5 July 2022 +298 Talk:Batman: Arkham City →Reception issues: new section Tag: New topic
4 July 2022
26 June 2022
- 03:3103:31, 26 June 2022 +14 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows More homogenous with reviews in articles
21 June 2022
- 13:2013:20, 21 June 2022 +158 Talk:Homosexuality and psychology →Evelyn hooker: new section Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
- 00:3200:32, 21 June 2022 +15 Wolfenstein: The New Order →Gameplay: I suppose ambush could be used, but it doesn’t reflect the article's distinction between stealth and mayhem gameplay.
28 May 2022
- 16:1416:14, 28 May 2022 +663 Talk:Literary fiction →Proposition for shifting what literary fiction is considered in the article.
23 May 2022
- 13:0213:02, 23 May 2022 +43 Fable III →Reception: Am I reading a different here? the praise and criticisms seem to be completely different from the ones originally listed here. I updated it for a more holistic view of the praise and criticism respectively
- 12:5812:58, 23 May 2022 −1 Fable III →Reception: I read the article and their criticism seems to be on bugs more than anything.
19 May 2022
- 13:3513:35, 19 May 2022 +6 Mass Effect 3 →Legacy: Separating these publications from the player based response to controversies. The wording here better highlights the multiple views different publications had since the criticism of the ending seemed to largely go over the heads of publications and other controversies weren’t necessarily criticisms of the game itself.
- 13:0613:06, 19 May 2022 +706 Talk:Mass Effect 3 ending controversy →BBB statement: new section
- 04:3604:36, 19 May 2022 −646 Mass Effect 3 ending controversy →Response: Reading the source for the BBB claims, it’s very misleading. It is only a blog from a director of a branch of the BBB, not the BBB as a whole. Using a single blog post deceptively in an article makes for a sub-par source. I suggest finding a source that doesn’t clickbait like this.
- 04:2504:25, 19 May 2022 +41 Mass Effect 3 ending controversy →Response: This was not like an official BBB endorsement
18 May 2022
- 22:5922:59, 18 May 2022 −280 Genre fiction →Genre and the marketing of fiction
- 22:4822:48, 18 May 2022 +171 Talk:Fiction →Literary fiction: new section Tag: Reverted
- 22:3522:35, 18 May 2022 +378 Talk:Literary fiction →Proposition for shifting what literary fiction is considered in the article.
- 22:3222:32, 18 May 2022 +568 Talk:Literary fiction →Proposition for shifting what literary fiction is considered in the article.: new section
- 22:1222:12, 18 May 2022 +192 Talk:Literary fiction →Point of View
- 21:5521:55, 18 May 2022 −338 Literary fiction Citation does not support that it’s often used as a synonym. in fact, the definition doesn’t seem to exclude genre fiction. maybe a better source? Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit
- 19:2819:28, 18 May 2022 −1,414 The Eye of the World →Reception: The lead talks of the critical success, the reception section only lists two sources of questionable notability. Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
17 May 2022
- 16:1416:14, 17 May 2022 −26 Stephen King →Critical response: King has many supernatural works, and it's incomplete to suggest "the supernatural ones" are the most popular.
- 14:3014:30, 17 May 2022 −879 The Strain →Reception: Shortening reviews to get rid of the block quote. I think two positive and two negative works fine as well. Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
14 May 2022
- 14:2314:23, 14 May 2022 −454 Frankfurt School →Philosophy of music: Roger Scruton is not necessarily a needed view to have on this page. The influence of adornos critique should be balanced, not dismissed by a frankly fringe view academically. Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
- 14:2114:21, 14 May 2022 +245 Talk:Frankfurt School No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
3 March 2022
- 18:0118:01, 3 March 2022 −561 Homophobia →Non-neutral phrasing: Primary sources of one man's likely fringe position is more clutter than useful content in the article. It's not really an unreliable source, but it isn't necessary among the other criticisms presented in this section. I'd like to continue the discussion in the talk page if my change receives contesting views so we can work together to improve.
9 February 2022
- 12:4312:43, 9 February 2022 +63 Talk:Gay male speech →Cause of gay lisp
- 11:3011:30, 9 February 2022 +2 LGBT pride →In-group
- 04:5804:58, 9 February 2022 −9 LGBT pride →Criticism
11 November 2021
- 00:2500:25, 11 November 2021 −315 m Game I want to remove this until we can reach nuance between something like racing and gymnastics which is clearly supported as sports to be included in the Olympic games by international consensus versus Chris Crawford's (frankly restrictive) definition. I'd like to reach out on the talk page but it appears to gain no interaction.
- 00:2200:22, 11 November 2021 +5 m Game clarifying as it was confusing