Talk:Fossils

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Removed credited and verifiable information

Why is a properly credited source from the encyclopedia disallowed on this page? I added a short paragraph and credited my source (using their allowed link as the credit to avoid copyright infringment) yesterday. Today it is gone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by sahall (talk)

The following was moved here from my talk page: —Philip J. Rayment

I placed a small paragraph on the fossil page that I beleve added to the information on oppinion about finding "red blood cells" in fossils on the fossils page. It was a credited source. I would like to know why it was removed please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sahall (talk)

There were several problems that I had with the edit. Some of them I could have simply fixed, but taken all together I felt that it was better to just revert the edit. The problems were:
  1. It was not clear that the text was a direct cut and paste from another site. If you are going to quote, please indent the text or (my preference) use the {{QuoteBox}} template, or something like that.
  2. The reference link was not properly formatted. For one, it was shown as plain (monospaced) text because you put spaces in front of the web address. For another, you can't use HTML anchor tags for references. Thirdly, a reference is best done, at a minimum, according to Footnotes - technical help.
  3. You really shouldn't simply be copying and pasting material from other encyclopedias, particularly if they are subject to copyright, unless there is a good reason, such as quoting them as an authority. Now that may have been your intention, but that was not clear (e.g. no introductory sentence such as "according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, a fossil is..."). Your heading may have been intended to convey that, but it was not clear that this was the case ("Concise encyclopedia" is a version of Britannica; it is not the name of an encyclopedia itself, I believe).
  4. It was a general description or definition of a fossil. General descriptions should be at the start of an article, not at the end. This is what I was referring to in my edit comment.
  5. The article already had a general description. It was not clear (at a glance) just what this added to the description already there.
That's why I removed it, but I'll add some further comments in reply to your comments above:
  • I don't see how it "added to the information" on the finding of red blood cells. The bit you inserted didn't mention such.
  • You provided a link as per their page, but not the complete reference that they expected.
  • That red blood cells were found is not merely an "opinion". Thorough tests were done to eliminate other possibilities.
If you want to add anything from that back in, please put it in a suitable place in the article (e.g. in the opening description if it is meant to add to that). And don't simply put in direct quote unless there is a specific need for that. Do, however, provide a reference to that source if you base your addition on that source.
Philip J. Rayment 11:39, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Where did this go?

Judging by the fact that Philip commented on this, I'm guessing he gave it at least a cursory read and didn't find any innapropriate content. Why was this deleted? I found a cached version on Yahoo America, and still don't see anything wrong. HelpJazz 21:14, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Now there's broken redirects to here. If this page isn't recreated, could someone fix them? LiamG 23:08, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
I've restored it, although it does need a bit of work. Philip J. Rayment 07:05, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
Thank you Philip! Now that it's actually there it can actually be improved. I already like the changes. It's much clearer to put each view side by side instead of in two separate chunks. HelpJazz 12:39, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
Personal tools