186
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 551:
Line 551: + + + + + + + + +
Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse (view source)
Revision as of 02:49, November 28, 2008
, 02:49, November 28, 2008→Foxtrot and the Axiom of Choice: A late reply, guess why!
::I'm not questioning Foxtrot's history. I did, however, find a source that apparently proves him wrong in this issue. If Foxtrot can show that I made a mistake, that's cool. It's what content discussions are all about. I'm man enough to admit that I made a mistake once proof is produced. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 19:32, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::I'm not questioning Foxtrot's history. I did, however, find a source that apparently proves him wrong in this issue. If Foxtrot can show that I made a mistake, that's cool. It's what content discussions are all about. I'm man enough to admit that I made a mistake once proof is produced. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 19:32, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::Well, it seems I can't even enjoy my Thanksgiving evening in peace. Alan, you're once again misrepresenting my actions. The material removed by AndyJM was important to the Axiom of Choice article and a wholesale removal was thoroughly unjustified. Another editor, who has had a history of troublemaking, saw an opportunity to stir up trouble, using an article that a limited number of editors (esp. sysops) would have expertise with. He denied my knowledgeable directive that the non-Lebesgue measurable real subsets belonged in the article, and the ban reflected his denial. And now you are following his initiative in removing a valid criticism of AC and then downplaying it after I reinstated it. Your wish to bring it here to have "more eyes on this issue" is another step of defiance - considering Andy had been replying on the Axiom of Choice page, I think there was a very important set of eyes on the issue. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 20:32, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::Well, it seems I can't even enjoy my Thanksgiving evening in peace. Alan, you're once again misrepresenting my actions. The material removed by AndyJM was important to the Axiom of Choice article and a wholesale removal was thoroughly unjustified. Another editor, who has had a history of troublemaking, saw an opportunity to stir up trouble, using an article that a limited number of editors (esp. sysops) would have expertise with. He denied my knowledgeable directive that the non-Lebesgue measurable real subsets belonged in the article, and the ban reflected his denial. And now you are following his initiative in removing a valid criticism of AC and then downplaying it after I reinstated it. Your wish to bring it here to have "more eyes on this issue" is another step of defiance - considering Andy had been replying on the Axiom of Choice page, I think there was a very important set of eyes on the issue. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 20:32, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::::Apologies for the late reply, but Bugler forgot to unblock my IP, so I had to endure yet another unfair block even if he meant to undo it. Which means that it's now too late for me to effectively continue this discussion tonight, but let's see what happens.
::::*''The material removed by AndyJM was important to the Axiom of Choice article and a wholesale removal was thoroughly unjustified.''
::::His edit to [[Axiom of Choice]] corrected a factual mistake, and you reverted it. He even gave an explanation, which you ''also'' reverted. It's possible that the information could have been inserted in a rephrased way, but punishing somebody for only improving an article halfway through is madness.
::::*''Another editor, who has had a history of troublemaking, saw an opportunity to stir up trouble''
::::Bold accusation. I saw and still see somebody who tried to improve an article after you inserted a (then likely, now confirmed) wrong claim.
::::*''And now you are following his initiative in removing a valid criticism of AC and then downplaying it after I reinstated it.''
::::"Valid criticism"? The claim was ''wrong''. That's the definition of "invalid". And even then, it wouldn't have been criticism. Showing that X can be proven with Y doesn't criticize Y. Especially not when X can also be proven by other means. So where is the "downplaying"? I just provided sourced information - I can't help it if that information doesn't fit into the view the article apparently tries to push.
::::*''Your wish to bring it here to have "more eyes on this issue" is another step of defiance''
::::I only came here because you already blocked two people for disagreeing with whatever you think is right and because you issued a block threat at me, too. It's not my fault that you apparently can't have a content discussion without using your block rights! --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 21:49, 27 November 2008 (EST)