Jump to content
Page 1
- Spam[1]
- COI[2] And other edits here[3]
- Spam link[4]
- Well supported content removed from HIV/AIDS[5]
- Conference abstract query COI[6]
- Not what the source says[7]
- Unreffed[8]
- Bunch of test capitalizations[9]
- Incorrect material/vandalism[10]
- Typical over capitalization by student editors [11]
- Copied and pasted[12] from [13]
- Ref does not support[14] the use of metformin
- Case reports now acceptable[15]
- Primary source, promotional, and COI[16][17]
- Spam[18]
- Random uncleaned up stuff[19][20]
- Poor formating[21]
- Unclear why the ref in question was changed[22]
- Unjustified removal of images[23]
- Small primary source. Possible COI.[24]
- Primary source[25] and secondary source being misused.
- Vandalism[26]
- Spam[27]
- Incorrect[28]
- Small primary source[29]
- Using commercial press releases[30]
- 80% of people never having symptoms is different than 80% being asymptomatic[31]
- Removed concerns around the lack of evidence for polystyrene[32] and evidence for "sodium zirconium cyclosilicate" is lacking
- Kind of spammy[33]
- Spamming a case report to stuff it does not support.[34]
- Removal of image[35]
- Making language unnecessarily complicated[36]
- No idea why content removed[37]
- Spammy as already mentioned[38]
- Use of primary sources to promote new antibiotic and case aspersions on an older one.[39] Query COI[40]
- Addition of a bunch of primary sources[41]
- Robot surgery spam and primary sources[42]
- Not mentioned by the ref[43]
- Well the source supports sort of it is poorly worded[44]
- No ref[45]
- Someone does not like dairy[46]
- Spam[47]
- Poor source and not correct[48]
- Made the content lest specific[49]
- Good edition but formating issues and old material can really be removed[50]
- Vandalism[51]
- A popular press source casting doubt on the condition from 2007 has replaced multiple high quality secondary sources.[52]
- No ref and unable to find one[53]
- No ref provided[54]
- Not what was in the source[55]
- Removing well sourced content[56]
- Runners world as a ref[57]
- Primary sources[58]
- User made the article incorrect has not read the sources[59]
- Vandalism[60]
- Not supported by the refs[61]
- Meh[62]
- Ref spam[63]
- Poor formating[64]
- Not sure why removed[65]
- Spam[66]
- Removed well sourced content[67]
- Promotional[68]
- Duplicates content that was referenced[69]
- Changing wording to a technical audience[70]
- Better for a general audience before[71]
- Not appropriate content[72]
- Copyright issue[73] Also copied and pasted.[74] from [75]
- Spam[76] As is much of what this user dose/[77][78]
- Not always temporary[79]
- Not what the sources use[80]
- Article is now without a lead image[81]
Page 2
