nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 3:
Line 3: + + + + + + + + + + + +
Why I removed it
:<small>''The following was moved here from my talk page: —[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]]''</small>
:<small>''The following was moved here from my talk page: —[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]]''</small>
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? {{unsigned|Sahall}}
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? {{unsigned|Sahall}}
: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:
:# 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 {{tl|QuoteBox}} template, or something like that.
:# 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 [[Conservapedia:Footnotes - technical help|Footnotes - technical help]].
:# 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).
:# 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.
:# 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.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:39, 17 July 2007 (EDT)