08:3008:30, 17 February 2013diffhist−39
Mark Anthony Neal
Hmm. However, it's odd to have it before publications, and there's no need for a separate link to the case. (sorry for the double-edit)
08:2908:29, 17 February 2013diffhist+1,178
Mark Anthony Neal
Though the twitter part is indeed unnecessary (or at least oddly-phrased), we don't simply blank out entire referenced sections without discussionTag: possible
BLP issue or vandalism
08:2208:22, 17 February 2013diffhist+2,118
Pedro Lasch
Rv: That edit description made no sense. How is it vandalism to include a very notable and well-publicized event, with a direct connection to the subject?Tag: possible
BLP issue or vandalism
08:1808:18, 17 February 2013diffhist+1,414
Cathy Davidson
Why blank out an entire section over a missing reference when it's so easy to verify? (like, literally, just copied the ref from the 88 article)Tag: possible
BLP issue or vandalism