User talk:Timematter

From Conservapedia
This is the current revision of User talk:Timematter as edited by SamHB (Talk | contribs) at 19:00, 6 May 2016. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Useful links

Welcome!

Hello, Timematter, and welcome to Conservapedia!

We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you edit.

At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page. Any questions--ask!

Thanks for reading, Timematter!


SamHB

I think your musings on Einstein's religious views are appropriate for the article about him, but not for the various articles about relativity. First, you should know that, here at Conservapedia, Einstein is not given much credit for relativity. Roger Schlafly (Andy's brother) is the chief proponent of that view. I think his denigration of Einstein's role in this is overboard, but I don't get into fights over it. What it means is that you need to be especially careful adding connections between Einstein and relativity here at Conservapedia. In any case, the Michelson-Morley experiment has nothing to do with Einstein's belief or non-belief in a personal God.

So, unless you can persuade me otherwise, I'm probably going to remove those things, in a few days, from the articles other than the Einstein article itself. Even having just a picture of Einstein on, for example, the E=mc²‎ article, may be more than Roger wants to put up with.

But it is a nice quote.

SamHB (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2016 (EDT)

SamHB, please stop locking horns with others unnecessarily. It was a good faith edit and Conservapedia does not want to be as unwelcoming as Wikipedis in terms of legitimate edits being reverted.
I concur with you that it is a nice quote and the notion that Einstein's role in the theory of relativity needs to be minimized is absurd as you well know. When people think of relativity, the first thing that comes into their head in most cases is Albert Einstein. Furthermore, the pages were plain Jane previously.
I am putting my foot down on this matter. Don't mess with the photo and quote. I realize that you had some legitimate complaints with other editors, but in this case I disagree.
Just let this sleeping dog lie without kicking it. Conservative (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2016 (EDT)
OK. I won't interfere further. My apologies to Timematter. There are more important things to do than annoying a new user. Like writing about diethyl ether.
I know you like to have a picture at the top of an article to make it look nicer. And, if you're going to have a picture for anything related to relativity, Einstein is the one. A picture illustrating the definition of Riemann's tensor just won't do.  :-) SamHB (talk) 00:41, 5 May 2016 (EDT)
I appreciate that you like to make mainspace articles look more appealing by putting in pictures, but I'd like an exception for Counterexamples_to_Relativity and Essay:Rebuttal_to_Counterexamples_to_Relativity. These two articles are a serious debate. The pictures detract from their perceived seriousness. Is it OK if I take thim out? SamHB (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2016 (EDT)
Thanks. I appreciate the edits being left as is. Timematter (talk) 00:45, 5 May 2016 (EDT)
If Sam accepts this then fair enough. Sam is man enough and politically canny enough to roll with the punches.
But let us now get onto the subject of history - and art. (I am to history what Sam is to Math/science, though not as knowlegeable) So I ask... why did you delete from the CP article Georgia a picture entitled "Oglethorpe builds Savannah", uploaded on 24 January 2010 by User: JJJenson, at that time a CP administrator? AlanE (talk) 02:17, 5 May 2016 (EDT)
It was accidental. The history section in that article had no text content. When I deleted the history section, I should have been more careful not to delete material which would affect another section. Namely, the graphic. In this case, it would have been better to assume good faith since my other edits were good faith edits.Timematter (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2016 (EDT)
Point taken. AlanE (talk) 01:25, 6 May 2016 (EDT)