Difference between revisions of "Talk:Pseudogene"
From Conservapedia
British cons (Talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
::These are common knowledge ideas here, but REQUEST citations don't just delete, that is seriously abusive. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 00:08, 4 April 2007 (EDT) | ::These are common knowledge ideas here, but REQUEST citations don't just delete, that is seriously abusive. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 00:08, 4 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | :::Certainly looks well sourced now. --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 02:45, 5 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 06:45, April 5, 2007
I deleted this entry because: no sourcing and "facts" are asserted but not shown. Conservative 00:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
I STRONGLY object to this deletion. This is totally uncalled for. Etaroced 00:04, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Please bring the article back and I will go through and individually source each claim. Etaroced 00:05, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
- That may not be possible. And please do not assert "facts" that are not facts. If I am not mistaken you broke two conservapedia rules in your unsourced article. Conservative 00:07, 4 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
- These are common knowledge ideas here, but REQUEST citations don't just delete, that is seriously abusive. Etaroced 00:08, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
- Certainly looks well sourced now. --British_cons (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
- These are common knowledge ideas here, but REQUEST citations don't just delete, that is seriously abusive. Etaroced 00:08, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
