SkipCaptcha, nsSupply_SidersR, nsSupply_Siders_
8,436
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 4:
Line 4: +
re
::I have not even begun to delve into the reasons why biblical references are not valid support of nearly any argument, however i have respected your bias for that. I will not, however, respect your bias for disseminating false information. I, as well as other users, have thoroughly rebutted most all of the counterexamples on the main page, I have even gone to the lengths as to provide credible and complete sources to back these rebuttals up; which is more than can be said for most of the information even provided on the main page. "If you please, Mark, try quoting the actual scientific journal instead of the New York Times. Wikipedia is also not a source. Karajou 21:31, 5 May 2011 (EDT)". I quote you on disregarding this users rebuttal to "having never found gravity waves" by discrediting his source. However, if you are going to disallow him from changing the information on the page because his source is not valid, then you should immediately remove all of the counterexamples which do not have valid sources, or provide them at once. In my edit of the page, i allowed the uncited information to remain, provided that in time (relatively promptly), valid sources would be provided. As an administrator it would be hypocritical to allow inaccurate information without citations to persist, whilst disallowing accurate information with poor citations, or even proper ones. [[User:Gresavage|Gresavage]] 19:16, 12 May 2011 (EDT)
::I have not even begun to delve into the reasons why biblical references are not valid support of nearly any argument, however i have respected your bias for that. I will not, however, respect your bias for disseminating false information. I, as well as other users, have thoroughly rebutted most all of the counterexamples on the main page, I have even gone to the lengths as to provide credible and complete sources to back these rebuttals up; which is more than can be said for most of the information even provided on the main page. "If you please, Mark, try quoting the actual scientific journal instead of the New York Times. Wikipedia is also not a source. Karajou 21:31, 5 May 2011 (EDT)". I quote you on disregarding this users rebuttal to "having never found gravity waves" by discrediting his source. However, if you are going to disallow him from changing the information on the page because his source is not valid, then you should immediately remove all of the counterexamples which do not have valid sources, or provide them at once. In my edit of the page, i allowed the uncited information to remain, provided that in time (relatively promptly), valid sources would be provided. As an administrator it would be hypocritical to allow inaccurate information without citations to persist, whilst disallowing accurate information with poor citations, or even proper ones. [[User:Gresavage|Gresavage]] 19:16, 12 May 2011 (EDT)
:::Tone down the tone, sir. First of all I know nothing of the theory except for that its Einstein's and e=mc<sup>2</sup> - I'm a poli sci major with a math minor, that's all. I do not know which of the counterexamples are confirmed; I do not have that expertise, thus I do not plan on editing the article - presenting your case to me is a waste of breath. Regardless of whether you are right or wrong, edit warring isn't okay. Wait for the discussion to finish. Also what you do need to respect is that this is Andy's website, so while you're certainly free to disagree and debate with him, ultimately he has final say.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 19:25, 12 May 2011 (EDT)