Difference between revisions of "User talk:Sureal"
From Conservapedia
m |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
You removed quite a bit of well cited information from the dinosaur article. Please refrain from such edits in the future. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 12:29, 11 March 2007 (EDT) | You removed quite a bit of well cited information from the dinosaur article. Please refrain from such edits in the future. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 12:29, 11 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
Not sure if this will get to you or anything, but what the hey: | Not sure if this will get to you or anything, but what the hey: | ||
Revision as of 16:50, March 11, 2007
You removed quite a bit of well cited information from the dinosaur article. Please refrain from such edits in the future. ~ SharonS 12:29, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Not sure if this will get to you or anything, but what the hey:
The only part I removed was "These fossil records though have huge gaps", which is NOT well cited. The closest there is to a citation is AiG, which is a single, biased source, and thus not a lot of use.
Apart from that, I only reworded certain parts of it, added in headings to make it easier to read, and added in a lot of information to try and balance it.
How about we come to a compromise? I'll revert to my version, but I'll leave in the bit about the fossils record having huge gaps? Sureal
