User talk:FingoMcGlingo

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This is serious resource. Please, be serious in your entries or it will become necessary to block your account. Thank you.--Aschlafly 16:39, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Mr Schlafly, please cite the specific entries that you feel are not serious before making such accusations. Even though you personally may disagree with my additions, I assure you the Holy Spirit flows through me in everything I do, especially when related to a community of such vital importance as this. Thank you. FingoMcGlingo 16:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Don't insert a category into entries called "Things Condemned by God," for example. Thanks.--Aschlafly 16:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I did notice that category has been deleted or altered- I apologise if this is out of line with your plans for the site. I think it would be helpful for visitors if we had some sort of 'Sin' category, with every biblical sin listed along with the penalty incurred for committing it- a reference page, if you will. Is this possible? I will refrain from using categories for the time being.FingoMcGlingo 16:53, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, but your most recent entry is still too opinionated ("avidly" this, "avidly" that). Just the facts, please, or someone will block your account. Thanks.--Aschlafly 17:14, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Final warning: one more opinionated entry and your account will be blocked. Your entry on Karl Marx is pure, unsupported opinion. Thanks.--Aschlafly 17:18, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Apologies- I finished my Karl Marx entry before I received your message. That information is factually correct, though- the USSR declared itself, as a state, to be officially atheistic as a rebuttal to the rise of religion in the USA. Is there a single example of an uncorrupt Marxist state? Would you rather I water down the truth to be more digestable to a liberal audience? FingoMcGlingo 17:20, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Please look at a real encyclopedia, or the style of other entries here: they are factual, without opinions and emotionally charged terms. They have citations. Everything you enter should have at least one citation. Many here share your opinions, but this is a resource for obtaining the *facts*. Thanks.--Aschlafly 17:26, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Mr Schlafly, I suggest you look at the body of other articles- a vast majority of them are shorter than a paragraph, with very few citations, and, the ones which are cited all seem to reference either a single textbook or, criminally, other Conservapedia articles. I'm sure you're aware that this is not exactly a high standard of academic verifiability. I came to this site from Wikipedia with the impression that this is a site for things we all *know* to be true, and that, as such, don't require evidence or citation. For instance, even the lowest of atheists can usually see that murder is wrong, despite the fact it is impossible to scientifically prove or empirically validate this obvious truism. I'm not saying we shouldn't provide citations where truth and evidence overlap, but for now, with limited time and editors, we should focus on improving the truth value of this resource, rather than demanding rigorous citation and criticising each other, in my humble opinion. Thanks FingoMcGlingo 17:33, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Just the facts. This is not for opinion. Please. I look forward to your addition of illuminating facts. Thanks.--Aschlafly 17:38, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for the clarification- I'm sorry if we got off on the wrong foot somewhat :). Just to be extra sure, does a statement such as 'Communist governments are invariably corrupt' count as fact or opinion? I'm pretty sure this is demonstratably true and that there is no 'evidence' to the contrary, but I can't think of any other way to word it. Thoughts? FingoMcGlingo 17:43, 11 March 2007 (EDT)