Top edits to an article All edits made to a page by one user, in chronological order.

Article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Africoid peoples (Log · Page History)
User WeijiBaikeBianji (Edit Counter· Top Edits)
Total edits 11
Minor edits 2 (18.2%)
(Semi-)automated edits 0 (0%)
Reverted edits 0 (0%)
atbe1 0.6
Added (bytes)2 7,044
Deleted (bytes) -1
Minor edits · 2 (18.2%)
Major edits · 9 (81.8%)
(Semi-)automated edits · 0 (0%)
Manual edits · 11 (100%)
Reverted edits · 0 (0%)
Unreverted edits · 11 (100%)
1 Average time between edits (days)
2 Added text is any positive addition that wasn't reverted (approximate)
Date Links Size Edit summary
Diff · History -1 Africoid peoples: ce
Diff · History 664 Africoid peoples: Each Wikipedian persuades me in turn, but I'm most persuaded by this.
Diff · History 1 Africoid peoples: corrected indent
Diff · History 909 Africoid peoples: Thanks for comment--I appreciate the opportunity to learn from previous practice.
Diff · History 1,424 Africoid peoples: Thank you for further reply. (P.S. I only came to this AfD discussion because of a notice on the appropriate WikiProject page, for which I've been compiling sources.)
Diff · History 742 Africoid peoples: Yes, that kind of sourcing is what is at issue here.
Diff · History 1,268 Africoid peoples: Thanks for pointer to more specific policy--I think the sourcing issue still remains a ground for deletion here.
Diff · History 656 Africoid peoples: Doesn't devoting a separate article to a poorly sourced fringe theory violate both WP:RS and WP:NPOV?
Diff · History 324 Africoid peoples: I thought Wikipedia was clear that it is not for publishing fringe views. It's not a blog site.
Diff · History 738 Africoid peoples: thanks for follow-up, and reply
Diff · History 318 Africoid peoples: fringe view not sourced enough for separate Wikipedia article
All times are in UTC.