Difference between revisions of "Talk:Andromeda galaxy"
From Conservapedia
(→Disclaimer) |
(→Disclaimer: touching concern) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
:How about you actually read the comment I left the other day on your talk page? I find you deceitful, stating one purpose for being here, and editing everything but. Did you follow the links to the other pages linked to the Commandments? The are adjunct to them, as clearly stated on their page. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big><sub>/Admin</sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 00:32, 11 February 2010 (EST) | :How about you actually read the comment I left the other day on your talk page? I find you deceitful, stating one purpose for being here, and editing everything but. Did you follow the links to the other pages linked to the Commandments? The are adjunct to them, as clearly stated on their page. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big><sub>/Admin</sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 00:32, 11 February 2010 (EST) | ||
| − | I've had a dispute with another editor here, BMcP, regarding this. The compromise we reached is that material which states or implies the universe is millions of years old or older should be placed in a "Old Universe View" section, while material that states or implies that universe is thousands of years old or younger should be placed in a "Young Universe Section." This agreement seems to me to satisfy all parties. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 02:19, 11 February 2010 (EST) | + | ::I've had a dispute with another editor here, BMcP, regarding this. The compromise we reached is that material which states or implies the universe is millions of years old or older should be placed in a "Old Universe View" section, while material that states or implies that universe is thousands of years old or younger should be placed in a "Young Universe Section." This agreement seems to me to satisfy all parties. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 02:19, 11 February 2010 (EST) |
| + | |||
| + | :::I don't think "compromises" as to the deceit of an editor here are within my purview, Jacob...that would be between the user and God. What is within my purview is the decision as to if CP should be an enabler for his deceit. Thanks for the suggestion, but I am certain I have the ability to decide this. ;-) --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big><sub>/Admin</sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 04:52, 11 February 2010 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 09:52, February 11, 2010
Disclaimer
Perhaps at the top of each astronomy article we can put a disclaimer like "This article assumes a universe that is approximately 13,7 billion years old. This is just a theory and in no way has been proven." That way we can keep in the science. DaneW 00:15, 11 February 2010 (EST)
- How about you actually read the comment I left the other day on your talk page? I find you deceitful, stating one purpose for being here, and editing everything but. Did you follow the links to the other pages linked to the Commandments? The are adjunct to them, as clearly stated on their page. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 00:32, 11 February 2010 (EST)
- I've had a dispute with another editor here, BMcP, regarding this. The compromise we reached is that material which states or implies the universe is millions of years old or older should be placed in a "Old Universe View" section, while material that states or implies that universe is thousands of years old or younger should be placed in a "Young Universe Section." This agreement seems to me to satisfy all parties. JacobB 02:19, 11 February 2010 (EST)
- I don't think "compromises" as to the deceit of an editor here are within my purview, Jacob...that would be between the user and God. What is within my purview is the decision as to if CP should be an enabler for his deceit. Thanks for the suggestion, but I am certain I have the ability to decide this. ;-) --ṬK/Admin/Talk 04:52, 11 February 2010 (EST)
