Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
169 bytes added ,  16:08, August 17, 2011
→‎Slight change.: You've been granted blocking and SkipCatcha privileges. Congratulations!
Line 13: Line 13:  
I think it would be fair to say I [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_controversy&action=historysubmit&diff=894934&oldid=894584 clarified] your [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=894584 edit]. What say you? --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 00:24, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
 
I think it would be fair to say I [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_controversy&action=historysubmit&diff=894934&oldid=894584 clarified] your [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=894584 edit]. What say you? --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 00:24, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
 
:I don't know that it's a clarification, so much as a slight change of meaning.  Some scientific controversy is '''not''' driving advancement, which I left room for in my edit.  As it currently stands, the article says that controversy ''necessarily'' drives advancement, which is not necessarily true. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 20:51, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
 
:I don't know that it's a clarification, so much as a slight change of meaning.  Some scientific controversy is '''not''' driving advancement, which I left room for in my edit.  As it currently stands, the article says that controversy ''necessarily'' drives advancement, which is not necessarily true. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 20:51, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
 +
 +
== Extra privileges granted ==
 +
 +
You've been granted blocking and SkipCatcha privileges.  Congratulations!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:08, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,152

edits

Navigation menu