Library Bill of Rights: Revision history

Filter revisionsshowhide

To date:

Tag filter:

Invert selection

External tools:

For any version listed below, click on its date to view it. For more help, see Help:Page history and Help:Edit summary. (cur) = difference from current version, (prev) = difference from preceding version, m = minor edit, → = section edit, ← = automatic edit summary

curprev 04:3504:35, 2 July 2008‎ LegitimateAndEvenCompelling talk contribs‎ 6,669 bytes 0‎ →‎Criticism: change some to other because some scholars already started the previous paragraph undo
curprev 02:1402:14, 2 July 2008‎ David Woolwine talk contribs‎ 6,669 bytes −515‎ The last paragraph has no references. undo
curprev 02:0902:09, 2 July 2008‎ 70.107.154.233 talk‎ 7,184 bytes +6‎ No edit summary undo

curprev 03:3503:35, 10 April 2008‎ 76.168.11.94 talk‎ 7,178 bytes +516‎ No edit summary undo

curprev 04:0004:00, 31 January 2008‎ SmackBot talk contribs‎ m 6,662 bytes +16‎ Date the maintenance tags or general fixes, Replaced: date={{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} → date=January 2008 undo

curprev 22:3922:39, 7 September 2007‎ Jessamyn talk contribs‎ 5,078 bytes −577‎ The supreme court case does not reference the LBR. this edit seems to me to be using wikipedia as your soapbox. please discuss this further on the talk page. undo
curprev 12:1012:10, 7 September 2007‎ LegitimateAndEvenCompelling talk contribs‎ 5,655 bytes +577‎ →‎Criticism: add indirect criticism from the US Supreme Court undo
curprev 12:0412:04, 7 September 2007‎ LegitimateAndEvenCompelling talk contribs‎ 5,078 bytes +795‎ add new section Criticism with text and references undo

curprev 05:5705:57, 22 March 2007‎ Jessamyn talk contribs‎ 4,141 bytes −198‎ the SCOTUS decision didn't say anything notable about the LBR, it just cited it as many other publications do. I'll move this discussion to the talk page. undo
curprev 03:3103:31, 22 March 2007‎ LegitimateAndEvenCompelling talk contribs‎ 4,339 bytes +198‎ SCOTUS is not just "one reference out of many approving references." It's the pinnacle of achievement. A real feather in the cap for the ALA. On this LBOR page, recognition of this is appropriate. undo

curprev 05:1305:13, 21 March 2007‎ 68.21.166.176 talk‎ 4,141 bytes −198‎ unless the decision altered or interpreted the document in a unique & newsworthy way, I don't see the relevance of isolating this one reference out of many other approving references undo
curprev 03:3103:31, 21 March 2007‎ Jessamyn talk contribs‎ 4,339 bytes −100‎ →‎History: shortened ths section and made it into two paragraphs for easier reading. undo
curprev 02:1002:10, 21 March 2007‎ LegitimateAndEvenCompelling talk contribs‎ 4,439 bytes +198‎ rv - SCOTUS cannot be considered mere part of "many pubs and docs"; as to "unless unique in some way," SCOTUS shows LBOR has become a fixture, and SCOTUS quotes from it approvingly. High regard! undo
curprev 01:2001:20, 21 March 2007‎ 68.21.166.176 talk‎ 4,241 bytes −198‎ many pubs and docs reference the LBOR; unless unique in some way, this is a non-sequitur undo

curprev 00:3700:37, 20 March 2007‎ 68.21.170.18 talk‎ 4,439 bytes +1‎ m grammar undo
curprev 00:2100:21, 20 March 2007‎ 68.21.170.18 talk‎ 4,438 bytes +107‎ correct Thomison citation (incorrect title dates) and fix link in 4th citation undo

curprev 19:1019:10, 19 March 2007‎ LegitimateAndEvenCompelling talk contribs‎ 4,331 bytes +199‎ →‎History: re-add SCOTUS case I suppose was accidently removed in the last change undo
curprev 18:1918:19, 19 March 2007‎ 66.158.92.4 talk‎ 4,132 bytes +209‎ correct and add citation undo
curprev 16:3516:35, 19 March 2007‎ LegitimateAndEvenCompelling talk contribs‎ 3,923 bytes +199‎ →‎History: add LBOR referenced by SCOTUS in US v. ALA undo

curprev 03:5103:51, 11 July 2006‎ Rlitwin talk contribs‎ m 3,712 bytes −3‎ →‎History: fixing run on sentence undo