589
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 41:
Line 41: +
→AFSC
:The point is that AFSC only permits exact copying of all of the material. If Conservapedia is happy with keeping ''it in its exact present form, exactly as written by AFSC,'' then everything is fine. If Conservapedia wants the page to be open to editing and changing, then it's not fine to use the AFSC article as a starting point. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:49, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
:The point is that AFSC only permits exact copying of all of the material. If Conservapedia is happy with keeping ''it in its exact present form, exactly as written by AFSC,'' then everything is fine. If Conservapedia wants the page to be open to editing and changing, then it's not fine to use the AFSC article as a starting point. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:49, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::Well I have rewritten the article and have it saved as a document to use if necessary. I rewrote the first and last sections to add a better historical context, and left the middle sections - the mission statement and values sections - as they were, with the statement about copying. If you want me to post that, I can. I'll leave it until tomorrow to give people a chance to decide what to do about it. However, the point about rewriting is that there is no other real source for information that isn't taken from AFSC. I have rewritten it in a way that does not directly copy but uses the information, and I think that would be acceptable to the AFSC if it's acceptable to Conservapedia.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 15:35, 28 April 2007 (EDT)