Difference between revisions of "Talk:Fred Hoyle"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
LardoBolger (talk | contribs) m (Poor grammar >_<) |
(reversion explained) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Although the edit I made changed [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]'s original edit, the reference he cited '''does not''' explain anything about an "obvious punishment", that the [[Nobel Prize]] was awarded to "underlings", nor any correlation that he was not given the Nobel Prize for "uncovering" the [[Archaeopteryx]] was a fraud. Since even YIC sites claim the Archaeopteryx is presently real, I would assume Hoyle's thesis on it would be a ''claim'' now. It would be misleading to purport his thesis as a fact still, without offering any counterclaim. [[User:LardoBolger|LardoBolger]] 23:42, 1 January 2008 (EST) | Although the edit I made changed [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]'s original edit, the reference he cited '''does not''' explain anything about an "obvious punishment", that the [[Nobel Prize]] was awarded to "underlings", nor any correlation that he was not given the Nobel Prize for "uncovering" the [[Archaeopteryx]] was a fraud. Since even YIC sites claim the Archaeopteryx is presently real, I would assume Hoyle's thesis on it would be a ''claim'' now. It would be misleading to purport his thesis as a fact still, without offering any counterclaim. [[User:LardoBolger|LardoBolger]] 23:42, 1 January 2008 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Reversion explained == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Don't delete factual information like that. This is not [[Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:11, 2 January 2008 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 05:11, January 2, 2008
Although the edit I made changed Aschlafly's original edit, the reference he cited does not explain anything about an "obvious punishment", that the Nobel Prize was awarded to "underlings", nor any correlation that he was not given the Nobel Prize for "uncovering" the Archaeopteryx was a fraud. Since even YIC sites claim the Archaeopteryx is presently real, I would assume Hoyle's thesis on it would be a claim now. It would be misleading to purport his thesis as a fact still, without offering any counterclaim. LardoBolger 23:42, 1 January 2008 (EST)
Reversion explained
Don't delete factual information like that. This is not Wikipedia.--Aschlafly 00:11, 2 January 2008 (EST)