User contributions for Matt Lewis

Search for contributionsshowhide

⧼contribs-top⧽

Username, IP address or CIDR range:

Namespace:

Invert selection

Associated namespace

Tag filter:

Invert selection

Only show edits that are latest revisions

Only show edits that are page creations

Hide minor edits

⧼contribs-date⧽

From date:

To date:

Show only edits pending review

Hide probably good edits

22:1622:16, 21 July 2024 diff hist +32 Adobe Inc. missing cite from intro added via ref name

22:1922:19, 15 February 2024 diff hist −10 New antisemitism The rather-rude repetition of bad grammar aside you cannot use "alarming" on its own. The 'resurgence' (as WP calls it) of "AS attacks on Jews" is based too-much on a new broadened definition to be the most objective word to describe it. Even using 'the proponents' POV(!) it's a subjective analysis of new data. But sticking to the 'For and Against' style/role here is very weak and over-personalising anyway. But have it your own way, deal with it all paragraph by paragraph by paragraph etc.

03:4903:49, 14 February 2024 diff hist −141,885 User talk:Matt Lewis ←Blanked the page Tag: Blanking
03:2603:26, 14 February 2024 diff hist −87 New antisemitism My rollback was because 'alarming' (I think it was my word btw) used by itself unencyclopedic, so the new edit was not an improvement. This is more nuanced than completely obvious, hence the whole article and the endless debate. In my life I've seen AS as it people saw it get better, not worse, but the definition has changed, so how do we properly compare? WP has to reflect this, not pick a side.
02:3002:30, 14 February 2024 diff hist +128 m New antisemitism Reverted edit by BanyanClimber (talk) to last version by Matt Lewis Tag: Rollback

22:4922:49, 12 February 2024 diff hist +135 New antisemitism →top: I don't agree with the edit summary of the removal of "alleged" (too much is based on both the statistical comparisons and the actual definition of it to called it fully irrefutable in terms of 'resurgence'), but for this sentence at least framing it in terms of "evidence of" is better than both.

21:2221:22, 9 February 2024 diff hist −41 Lady Justice →Scales: removing this as it's now cited... not sure when best to do this or not though.
21:1921:19, 9 February 2024 diff hist +280 Lady Justice →Scales: Great to see Wikipedia is as accurate and informative as ever in these everyday matters

23:2923:29, 6 February 2024 diff hist +26 Seventh grade adding clearly-missing clarification to this line, not sure if the rest of the intro fully holds up though (it's not used where I am)

05:1805:18, 1 February 2024 diff hist −1,522 Emily Dickinson →Adulthood etc: Reduced long line of citations on speculation of autism (3 books appear to ref the central text, 2 appear to be unrelated refs on D). There is no 'retrospective diagnosis' here and this whole area is highly polemical (from denying ASD exists to seeing it in 'troubled' genius everywhere). It is not noted by her scholars or biographers so not "commonly used". (The main source has just 12 reviews on Amazon in 15 years, so is not commonly read itself but is echoed on the net a lot)
03:0203:02, 1 February 2024 diff hist −10,003 User:Matt Lewis ←Blanked the page current Tag: Blanking

20:2020:20, 16 January 2016 diff hist +176 Naturopathy Rephrasing a number of generalisations and assumptions for an actual WP article. However some of the cites might put it, this is clearly a set of different approaches with varying issues. The intro treated the naturopat as a singular (negative) dicipline.