Difference between revisions of "Talk:Nanotechnology"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Reversion of JohnD edits)
(is it true? is it useful?)
Line 6: Line 6:
  
 
I can't speak for Ed Poor, but I'm guessing the only reason this was reverted was the lack of reference. Whenever yyou edit, please try to cite credible sources. Thanks.  --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] <sub>[[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]]</sub> 10:12, 12 November 2008 (EST)
 
I can't speak for Ed Poor, but I'm guessing the only reason this was reverted was the lack of reference. Whenever yyou edit, please try to cite credible sources. Thanks.  --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] <sub>[[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]]</sub> 10:12, 12 November 2008 (EST)
 +
 +
:This doesn't make sense: "The 'Top Down' method involves taking a larger object and removing parts to create a smaller structure similar to creating a statue from a block of stone." If I had inadvertently deleted correct information, he ought to have explained why it was correct. Instead, he implied that the stub template gave him a 'right' to edit.
 +
 +
:No one here has rights. We only have an obligation to share truthful and useful information. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:22, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Revision as of 09:22, 12 November 2008

I don't understand why you reverted my edit. The article has a stub at the end asking users to expand it. I did.

Reversion of JohnD edits

I don't see what was wrong with them, other than a reference not being provided. Why shouldn't they be restored since they were removed without explanation?. --DinsdaleP 09:57, 12 November 2008 (EST)

I can't speak for Ed Poor, but I'm guessing the only reason this was reverted was the lack of reference. Whenever yyou edit, please try to cite credible sources. Thanks. --Ben Talk 10:12, 12 November 2008 (EST)

This doesn't make sense: "The 'Top Down' method involves taking a larger object and removing parts to create a smaller structure similar to creating a statue from a block of stone." If I had inadvertently deleted correct information, he ought to have explained why it was correct. Instead, he implied that the stub template gave him a 'right' to edit.
No one here has rights. We only have an obligation to share truthful and useful information. --Ed Poor Talk 10:22, 12 November 2008 (EST)