8 November 2024
3 October 2024
13 June 2024
Subtle correction.
+42
no edit summary
+442
Sure there is thematic meaning. But also it is his alias from the real world. Really I just did not think so much of the first line should go toward discussing the Mewton joke.
−16
no edit summary
+12
This approach is just fundamentally mistaken. He's not called Jeova in his capacity as any one thing, he's called Jeova in ''multiple'' capacities throughout the book. Moreover, "Jeova" translates to "God", so the book's constant reference to him by that word alone has thematic meaning. (See also Eliza for another case of this.)
−253
no edit summary
+50
Adding Template:NOTOC as the way the tab of contents is positioned is pushing all the Template:Section cleanup and [[Template:Section stub)) templates down the page.
+9
Moving "aliases" section and renaming it as that is not a standard section name. Also, the bit about Love & War needs context, as the name only makes sense with said context.
+204
no edit summary
+46
no edit summary
+3
→Contributions to science
−1
→Contributions to science
+182
→Biography
+431
11 June 2024
13 March 2024
12 March 2024
10 March 2024
25 January 2024
23 January 2024
22 January 2024
Why was this removed? It's pretty explicit in the beginning of Newtons Sleep.
+42
no edit summary
+35
no edit summary
−8
no edit summary
+151
12 January 2024
11 January 2024
→Biography
+34
Undo revision 3689581 by Lollipop The King (talk) Not particularly, no.
+1
→Appearance
−1
6 January 2024
28 December 2023
Undo revision 3682737 by Wozza123 (talk) There are plenty character articles that have sections on appearance.
+279
I don't think this is really important, if you think it is, there should be one for every single character from history in all of DW and there isn't because it is not important I think. Why should it matter? I don't think it should.
−279
21 December 2023
no edit summary
+58
Undo revision 3678596 by 85.255.233.125 (talk) Once again per talk page.
You choosing to ignore what was said doesn't change things. "For now" does not mean permanently. People disagreeing on your own interpretation of "policy" does not vandalism make
Undo revision 3678593 by 85.255.233.125 (talk) This is flatly false. The article was protected before that decision, and one minute after Nate made his decision he placed the TV picture first in the tabbed infobox per the edit history. Whether or not people continued to argue is irrelevant. A decision was made. You're just engaging in vandalism. Go to the talk page.
The only thing that came out of that "ruling" was an article protection. It didn't rule anything, it simply said "for now". You're choosing to interpret it differently but the fact is as you can see on the Talk page people continued to argue their case.
Undo revision 3678589 by 85.255.233.125 (talk) There is a conclusion; an admin giving a ruling. Explicitly. In bold. If you want to argue this, go to the talk page. You're just violating T:BOUND.
If you read the talk page then you'd know there's clearly much disagreement and no conclusion.
Undo revision 3678585 by 85.255.233.125 (talk) Read the talk page. We had an extensive discussion about this.
There is no "policy" regarding this except neutral point of view