32
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 22:
Line 22: + + + + + + + +
User talk:Physicsnut (view source)
Revision as of 20:23, December 19, 2007
, 20:23, December 19, 2007slander
:::I'm sorry that your first impression of the site has been so poor... I don't make the rules though, and I don't control what remains and what is "bias" in each article - that is left up to a select few editors at Conservapedia. But thank you for the sources and the suggested changes, I'll try editing the article to implement them as "neutrally" as possible. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 12:53, 19 December 2007 (EST)
:::I'm sorry that your first impression of the site has been so poor... I don't make the rules though, and I don't control what remains and what is "bias" in each article - that is left up to a select few editors at Conservapedia. But thank you for the sources and the suggested changes, I'll try editing the article to implement them as "neutrally" as possible. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 12:53, 19 December 2007 (EST)
:::: Whatever. I'll go back to citizendium, where they have all of the political foibles of wikipedia but at least they're not driven by lunatics. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 15:23, 19 December 2007 (EST)
:::I would like to apologize as well. Unfortunately, none of your edits cited any of that information, and on Conservapedia, yes, you do need to cite ''everything'', especially when it disagrees with the already existing bias of the article. And if particularly drastically alters the tone of a paragraph or the page, potentially discuss it on the Talk page, stating that you are aware that such information would be contraversial for this site. However, always remind yourself of the bias that Conservapedia has, and speak appropriately to that audience. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 13:03, 19 December 2007 (EST)
:::I would like to apologize as well. Unfortunately, none of your edits cited any of that information, and on Conservapedia, yes, you do need to cite ''everything'', especially when it disagrees with the already existing bias of the article. And if particularly drastically alters the tone of a paragraph or the page, potentially discuss it on the Talk page, stating that you are aware that such information would be contraversial for this site. However, always remind yourself of the bias that Conservapedia has, and speak appropriately to that audience. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 13:03, 19 December 2007 (EST)
:::: Where's the citation for "may have hurt him professionally," exactly? Nothing hurt Dicke professionally, there is not a single professional physicst who has anything but the utmost professional and personal respect for a giant in our field. He didn't win the Nobel because Penzias and Wilson heard the hum first. You are slandering a great man so that you can insult general relativity for reasons that are entirely unclear. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 15:23, 19 December 2007 (EST)
::::It's rather a conservative ''perspective'' on Conservapedia than a ''[[bias]]'' - but those are certainly good suggestions for potentially controversial edits, Puellanivis. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:14, 19 December 2007 (EST)
::::It's rather a conservative ''perspective'' on Conservapedia than a ''[[bias]]'' - but those are certainly good suggestions for potentially controversial edits, Puellanivis. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:14, 19 December 2007 (EST)
::::: Nonsense. Your articles on physics are written by people who don't know what "tensor" means. It's either bias or idiocy. Rot. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 15:23, 19 December 2007 (EST)
:: Physicsnut, this site ''praises'' [[Robert Dicke]] and notes how he was improperly denied the [[Nobel Prize]]. This site does not allow attempts to belittle Dicke's work by merely describing it as a minor variation of the [[theory of relativity]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:04, 19 December 2007 (EST)
:: Physicsnut, this site ''praises'' [[Robert Dicke]] and notes how he was improperly denied the [[Nobel Prize]]. This site does not allow attempts to belittle Dicke's work by merely describing it as a minor variation of the [[theory of relativity]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:04, 19 December 2007 (EST)
::: No, this site insults Robert Dicke by insinuating that mainstream science rejected him. If you think that's "praise," you are as sick. That you don't understand B-D is more than clear - it is merely a minor adjustment to Einstein's theory of relativity - it's one extra term added on to the ten equations. I'm making one last attempt to remove the despicable slander. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 15:23, 19 December 2007 (EST)