Difference between revisions of "User talk:KSorenson"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(this is not Wikipedia where liberal distortions of science dominate. We tell the truth here. The black hole entry is no exception.)
Line 8: Line 8:
  
 
More generally, this is not Wikipedia where [[liberal]] distortions of science dominate.  We tell the truth here.  The [[black hole]] entry is no exception.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 11 November 2009 (EST)
 
More generally, this is not Wikipedia where [[liberal]] distortions of science dominate.  We tell the truth here.  The [[black hole]] entry is no exception.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 11 November 2009 (EST)
 +
 +
::I beg your pardon, sir? I most certainly did not delete it. Perhaps you overlooked it because I moved it to the bottom of the article? Or perhaps it's because I omitted rewrote it without the word "falsifiability," which … well, to put it bluntly was misleading. The Schwarzchild and Kerr metrics are certainly falsifiable.
 +
 +
::In either case, I will happily restore that sentence (or sentences; I'm not looking at the draft right now) and re-submit. If you still think the existing article is the better choice, then please (obviously) feel free to revert a third time, and I will leave it at that.
 +
 +
::Though I would very much like to work with you to come up with a draft of the article that you'll accept. The Schwarzchild and Kerr metrics are fascinating, and I'm afraid I have to say that the existing article on black holes is not as good as it could be.
 +
 +
::Thank you again for your feedback.--[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 23:16, 11 November 2009 (EST)

Revision as of 22:16, 11 November 2009

I found your edit summary to be misleading for black holes.--Andy Schlafly 22:41, 11 November 2009 (EST)

I'm sorry. I'll fix it.--KSorenson 22:43, 11 November 2009 (EST)
Okay, I resubmitted my changes with a more descriptive edit summary. Thank you very much for calling my attention to it.--KSorenson 22:47, 11 November 2009 (EST)

You didn't insert a "clarification" of the falsifiability defect in the theory of black holes, you deleted it. So again I found your edit summary to be misleading.

More generally, this is not Wikipedia where liberal distortions of science dominate. We tell the truth here. The black hole entry is no exception.--Andy Schlafly 23:08, 11 November 2009 (EST)

I beg your pardon, sir? I most certainly did not delete it. Perhaps you overlooked it because I moved it to the bottom of the article? Or perhaps it's because I omitted rewrote it without the word "falsifiability," which … well, to put it bluntly was misleading. The Schwarzchild and Kerr metrics are certainly falsifiable.
In either case, I will happily restore that sentence (or sentences; I'm not looking at the draft right now) and re-submit. If you still think the existing article is the better choice, then please (obviously) feel free to revert a third time, and I will leave it at that.
Though I would very much like to work with you to come up with a draft of the article that you'll accept. The Schwarzchild and Kerr metrics are fascinating, and I'm afraid I have to say that the existing article on black holes is not as good as it could be.
Thank you again for your feedback.--KSorenson 23:16, 11 November 2009 (EST)