User contributions for 156.57.37.71

17 August 2019

• 14:2314:23, 17 August 2019 diff hist −1,544‎ Psyche Revived by Cupid's Kiss ‎ →‎Canova: canova has his own article... this article links to it. this is totally pointless and redundant Tag: section blanking
• 14:1714:17, 17 August 2019 diff hist −68‎ Puppy love ‎ a crush is not the same thing as puppy love. puppy love is innocent adoration usu. by a child... you can want to fuck the brains out of your crush, and you can get a crush at any age. kitten love and calf love are unreferenced. Tag: Visual edit
• 14:1314:13, 17 August 2019 diff hist −3,092‎ Affection ‎ →‎Further reading: pointless disorganized gigantic list of readings that no one will consult. almost as long as the article itself. if needed, choose five important review/summary readings max Tag: section blanking
• 14:1214:12, 17 August 2019 diff hist +9‎ Affection ‎ →‎Parental relationships
• 14:1014:10, 17 August 2019 diff hist −1‎ Affection ‎ →‎Benefits of affection
• 14:1014:10, 17 August 2019 diff hist +11‎ Affection ‎ →‎Benefits of affection
• 14:0914:09, 17 August 2019 diff hist −104‎ Affection ‎ →‎Expression: unreferenced and doesn't even make sense in this paragraph
• 14:0514:05, 17 August 2019 diff hist −1‎ Affection ‎No edit summary
• 14:0514:05, 17 August 2019 diff hist −37‎ Affection ‎ affection is not the same thing as attraction and is certainly not the same thing as infatuation
• 14:0214:02, 17 August 2019 diff hist −39‎ Bekisa ‎ there's not much "romantic" about wanting to fuck a child
• 13:5713:57, 17 August 2019 diff hist +9‎ Courtship ‎ →‎Modern people

15 July 2019

• 16:5516:55, 15 July 2019 diff hist +12‎ Lolita (term) ‎ Undid revision 905351601 by HouseOfChange (talk) the problem is that the word choice is misleading. saying that he "raped" a 12-year-old has the connotation that it was forcible, whereas--in fact--dolores initiated the encounter. the entire point of this book is that it pivots on things like "age of consent", so you can't just call it "rape" without qualification. the Lolita article always qualifies as "statutatory".. Tag: Undo

1 July 2019

• 22:3322:33, 1 July 2019 diff hist −65‎ Stephen Herrero ‎No edit summary
• 12:2612:26, 1 July 2019 diff hist −4‎ Piano Man (song) ‎ companies aren't italicized

30 June 2019

• 22:2922:29, 30 June 2019 diff hist +75‎ Cross-sex friendship ‎No edit summary

16 June 2019

• 15:0315:03, 16 June 2019 diff hist −914‎ IPrEx ‎ →‎External links: rm trash links.
• 15:0215:02, 16 June 2019 diff hist +15‎ Microbicide Trials Network ‎No edit summary
• 15:0115:01, 16 June 2019 diff hist −2,551‎ Vaginal and Oral Interventions to Control the Epidemic ‎ this is another pointless clinical trial article that does not establish notability. current Tag: New redirect
• 14:5914:59, 16 June 2019 diff hist −2,108‎ PROUD (clinical trial) ‎ no evidence of notability provided. this is just a pointless summary of a clinical trial current Tag: New redirect
• 14:5814:58, 16 June 2019 diff hist −3,379‎ IPERGAY ‎ there is no evidence of notability provided. this is just a summary of a single clinical trial current Tag: New redirect

11 June 2019

• 23:4223:42, 11 June 2019 diff hist −7‎ Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act ‎ the claim that biden *wrote* the crime bill is unsupported. almost certainly it was written by staffers, so the claim is ludicruous. biden's own page says that he "spearheaded" the bill

10 June 2019

• 17:0917:09, 10 June 2019 diff hist −27‎ Emotional intimacy ‎ →‎Link with society
• 17:0817:08, 10 June 2019 diff hist −2,814‎ Emotional intimacy ‎ →‎A social fact: it is totally disgraceful for an encyclopedia to have a section called "a social fact" that is completely uncited and full of opinion Tag: section blanking
• 16:2416:24, 10 June 2019 diff hist −344‎ Pillow talk ‎ →‎External links: unexplained external link to primary source
• 05:5905:59, 10 June 2019 diff hist −11‎ Template:Gibson Guitar Corporation ‎No edit summary
• 05:5705:57, 10 June 2019 diff hist −4‎ Resonator guitar ‎ →‎Non-USA instruments
• 05:5205:52, 10 June 2019 diff hist +54‎ National String Instrument Corporation ‎ copying from dobro
• 05:5105:51, 10 June 2019 diff hist +87‎ Dobro ‎ copying from NSIC
• 05:4905:49, 10 June 2019 diff hist +18‎ Dobro ‎ →‎History
• 05:4805:48, 10 June 2019 diff hist +196‎ Dobro ‎ Filled in 2 bare reference(s) with reFill ()
• 05:4705:47, 10 June 2019 diff hist +121‎ Dobro ‎ →‎History
• 05:4205:42, 10 June 2019 diff hist +647‎ Dobro ‎ restoring the template with misinformation removed. remember, gibson DID NOT purchase Dobro Manufacturing Company!!! that company is defunct. they only have the rights to the brand name dobro.
• 05:3505:35, 10 June 2019 diff hist +19‎ Dobro ‎ →‎Products
• 05:3305:33, 10 June 2019 diff hist −813‎ Dobro ‎ →‎Modern instruments: this section is mostly irrelevant or incorrect material. gibson does not limit its use of 'dobro' to spider-bridge guitars (see the dobro m-14); further, it has already been stated that dobro is trademarked and that other companies manufacture similar guitars that are sometimes called 'dobros' generically Tag: section blanking
• 05:2005:20, 10 June 2019 diff hist −4‎ Slingerland Drum Company ‎No edit summary
• 05:1805:18, 10 June 2019 diff hist +8‎ Slingerland Drum Company ‎ →‎History
• 05:1505:15, 10 June 2019 diff hist −390‎ Dobro ‎ →‎History: no evidence that this distinction is true today. epiphone's website specifically calls things "dobro hound dog" Tag: references removed
• 05:1105:11, 10 June 2019 diff hist +4‎ Dobro ‎ →‎History
• 05:1005:10, 10 June 2019 diff hist −403‎ Dobro ‎ →‎History: adding material from gibson's company history
• 04:3604:36, 10 June 2019 diff hist −12‎ Gibson (guitar company) ‎ dobro is a brand, not a compan
• 04:3304:33, 10 June 2019 diff hist −297‎ Dobro ‎ →‎Generic usage: redundant statement that overlaps with the first sentence. it purports to give examples but it's not clear of what. are these songs that mention a dobro? how do we know the term is being used generically? unreferenced shite.
• 04:3104:31, 10 June 2019 diff hist −132‎ Dobro ‎ →‎External links: unexplained link to an archived version of a page advertising private sale of a guitar
• 04:3004:30, 10 June 2019 diff hist +138‎ Dobro ‎No edit summary
• 04:2804:28, 10 June 2019 diff hist −913‎ Dobro ‎ this article is confused because it conflates two different things: dobro the brand and dobro the company. dobro the brand still exists and is manufactured by epiphone. dobro the company is defunct. saying that dobro is a subsidiary of epiphone (or gibson) as in the infobox (without attribution/reference) is incorrect. Tag: references removed
• 04:2504:25, 10 June 2019 diff hist +76‎ Epiphone ‎No edit summary
• 04:2304:23, 10 June 2019 diff hist −12‎ Epiphone ‎ dobro is a brand, not a company.
• 04:1704:17, 10 June 2019 diff hist +18‎ Epiphone ‎No edit summary
• 04:1604:16, 10 June 2019 diff hist −15‎ Epiphone ‎ again, gibson, not cmi. these changes to say CMI rather than gibson were made on 18 March 2017‎ by user Randomguy22
• 04:1204:12, 10 June 2019 diff hist −462‎ Epiphone ‎ see previous edit. this claims are made without reference. according to epiphone, epiphone was purchased by gibson, not by CMI. (i.e., it was a subsidiary of gibson, not a sister company). i am also removing other unreferenced material that has been that way for 8 years and appears to be a matter of opinion in any case
• 04:0804:08, 10 June 2019 diff hist −69‎ Epiphone ‎ →‎History: the reference provided (epiphone's official history) does not claim that epiphone was acquired by CMI; it claims that it was acquired by **Gibson** because of a purchase by mccarty (i.e., that epiphone was a *subsidiary* of gibson, not a *sister company* of gibson as this wikipedia article incorrectly suggests)