User talk:Gresavage
From Conservapedia
Before you remove or change anything, we need you to explain why on the relevant talk page. Karajou 00:39, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
- Also you can't just explain and then change. Starting on the talk page means there's a discussion; that discussion might go your way; it might not, but edit warring isn't allowed.--IDuan 18:54, 12 May 2011 (EDT)
- I explained, Andy Schlafy prompty replied, i rebutted. He also provided no sources to support his arguments. I have provided both non-biased sources, and sources that are biased against my arguments in support of my arguments. These sources (non-biased) are well respected and accepted as accurate secondary and primary sources. I did not misquote or misinform from those sources, and if i must i will mail you a quantum mechanics and general relativity textbook, or perhaps even some dissertations and such regarding this matter and perhaps you can peruse them for the veracity of my claims. Many of the arguments i presented have been discussed in great detail already on the talk page. Andy schlafly is presenting irrelevant facts and arguments, if not completely erroneous ones; he supports his arguments with no sources, and no credibility. If we are solely to determine the accuracy of arguments solely on the magnitude of sources provided, and not even their credibility, andy schlafly's positions would be entirely wrong. If we were to incorporate the actual validity as well, then it would be apparent that he should not be a member of this site. His arguments are biased, ignorant, and demonstrably false (in most cases). I have demonstrated how they are inaccurate, and yet neither of you seem to be obliging your administrative duties, or ethical ones in providing accurate and up-to-date information.
- 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. 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=mc2 - 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. I think you're mistaking me for someone else - I've never commented on gravity waves. But 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.--IDuan 19:25, 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. Gresavage 19:16, 12 May 2011 (EDT)
- of course, i mistook you for karajou. I apologize for the mistake. Gresavage 20:16, 12 May 2011 (EDT)
- i would like to know, however, when would you consider a conversation to be complete? For instance, one could just keep arguing and arguing with absolutely no validity, and never concede to the veracity of the others points; how do you suppose we determine when the conversation is over then. I used this as an example because it seems to be the case on many of the talk pages, especially those concerning more concrete matters. Users will provide detailed and thorough rebuttals, sometimes with properly cited sources, and yet the administrators disallow editing of the main page.
- This being a meritocracy, if you're debating an administrator the argument is either over when you've convinced him or her OR when you've made all your points and haven't convinced the individual. If multiple admins are involved or if no admins are involved, it's really based on consensus.--IDuan 21:02, 12 May 2011 (EDT)
- pardon the vulgarity but that really sucks Gresavage 21:21, 12 May 2011 (EDT)
- Because that way this site becomes more of a site about "This is what I believe", rather than "this is what is factual". "I" is referring to the administrators.
- This being a meritocracy, if you're debating an administrator the argument is either over when you've convinced him or her OR when you've made all your points and haven't convinced the individual. If multiple admins are involved or if no admins are involved, it's really based on consensus.--IDuan 21:02, 12 May 2011 (EDT)
- i would like to know, however, when would you consider a conversation to be complete? For instance, one could just keep arguing and arguing with absolutely no validity, and never concede to the veracity of the others points; how do you suppose we determine when the conversation is over then. I used this as an example because it seems to be the case on many of the talk pages, especially those concerning more concrete matters. Users will provide detailed and thorough rebuttals, sometimes with properly cited sources, and yet the administrators disallow editing of the main page.
- of course, i mistook you for karajou. I apologize for the mistake. Gresavage 20:16, 12 May 2011 (EDT)
Please do not get into arguments with sysops. Please do not delete material. There are better ways to make your point. The fact that you have brought yourself to the attention of people who are not actually involved with the topic of relativity is not a good sign. Feel free to discuss this with me on your talk page, or mine, or at sam4557@gmail.com. SamHB 01:22, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
- The only material i deleted was on the main page. My initial deletion, i admit, was in err. However there was some discussion on the talk page. After discussion ceased i took this as a sign to go ahead and make my edits. Furthermore karajou said that i was allowed to edit so long as i left the biblical quotes there. I have, so far, only been doing what was told of me. I understand initially that i should have discussed edits before enacting them on the talk page. I have not since, though, done anything in violation of any of the rules and regulations of conservapedia. Gresavage 02:16, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
