Talk:Jessica F. Cantlon: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
So funded by koch obviously means that he is the direct editor? Or is the person who reverted that reverting changes based on conspiracy theory mumbo-jumbo. If Koch funded a study of gravity it wouldn't discount the findings of the study. This is soo immature that I need an adult to come in and lecture that person please. [[Special:Contributions/73.60.59.91|73.60.59.91]] ([[User talk:73.60.59.91|talk]]) 19:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC) |
So "funded by koch" obviously means that he is the direct editor? Or is the person who reverted that reverting changes based on conspiracy theory mumbo-jumbo. If Koch funded a study of gravity it wouldn't discount the findings of the study. This is soo immature that I need an adult to come in and lecture that person please. You can revert the changes all you want, but your reasoning is immature and the language you used in the reverts also shows an immaturity to the process of, you know, cataloging information.If anyone would like I would love to see the rebuttal of Hertzog's reporting plus a list of the factual inaccuracies of Reason.com which should be easy to find. Except for it's incredibly high standards of fact checking. I assume were they so-known as conspiracy peddlers then their Wikipedia entry would say so. [[Special:Contributions/73.60.59.91|73.60.59.91]] ([[User talk:73.60.59.91|talk]]) 19:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC) |
||
{{WikiProject Biography |class=C |listas=Cantlon, Jessica F. |living=yes |s&a-work-group=yes}} |
{{WikiProject Biography |class=C |listas=Cantlon, Jessica F. |living=yes |s&a-work-group=yes}} |
Revision as of 19:51, 16 March 2022
So "funded by koch" obviously means that he is the direct editor? Or is the person who reverted that reverting changes based on conspiracy theory mumbo-jumbo. If Koch funded a study of gravity it wouldn't discount the findings of the study. This is soo immature that I need an adult to come in and lecture that person please. You can revert the changes all you want, but your reasoning is immature and the language you used in the reverts also shows an immaturity to the process of, you know, cataloging information.If anyone would like I would love to see the rebuttal of Hertzog's reporting plus a list of the factual inaccuracies of Reason.com which should be easy to find. Except for it's incredibly high standards of fact checking. I assume were they so-known as conspiracy peddlers then their Wikipedia entry would say so. 73.60.59.91 (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Biography: Science and Academia C‑class | ||||||||||
|
Women scientists C‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- C-Class biography articles
- C-Class biography (science and academia) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles
- Science and academia work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- C-Class Women scientists articles
- Low-importance Women scientists articles
- WikiProject Women scientists articles