553
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 20:
Line 20: +
→“He used faulty statistical sampling methods to baffle the unsophisticated.”
:I removed these again, sine the revert seemed targeted at the 10% number not this claim.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 16:06, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
:I removed these again, sine the revert seemed targeted at the 10% number not this claim.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 16:06, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
::Is there a reason this edit was reverted again? I’ve explained in great detail why each and every single one of these sources does not support the claim it is being used to support and why it was removed. Is there a problem with any of my explanation or is there a quote from one of these sources I’m missing? If the revert could be explained I would greatly appreciate it. I’ve seen no objection to this edit (the only objection I’ve seen to any of my edits to this page is that “everyone knows” the 10% which this edit did not touch—see below for why I made that edit), could the problem with it be explained?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 16:27, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
== Reisman ==
== Reisman ==