User talk:GofG
From Conservapedia
Contents |
Edit conflicts
When you have an edit conflict, you can scroll down and there will be a box which contains the text as it would have been if not for the edit conflict. JoshuaZ 22:09, 9 March 2007 (EST)
Please delete your last comment on the main page talk page. And make the first asterisk before the first occurrence of the word "Conservapedia". Otherwise, I will have to make the edit and it will not be pretty. Thank you. --<<-David R->> 23:24, 10 March 2007 (EST)
- I have given you enough time. I will make the edit. --<<-David R->> 23:26, 10 March 2007 (EST)
Ah thanks very much! --Elamdri 21:54, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Didn't say it was - referring to Aschlafly's page. --<<-David R->> 20:34, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
sysop warning
- Your last 4 edits were useless. Tell what your plan is before making any more edits or article comments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ed_Poor (talk)
Tit for tat
If you're hoping I'll take revenge on you and your ilk for getting me banned at #wikipedia you are headed for disappointment. I don't get even. (I do get mad, I'm only human. ;-)
See my talk page for details. --Ed Poor 11:31, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
Canada
GofG wrote: "(The fact that the government is liberal has nothing to do with this, and no where else in the article is it mentioned that they have a liberal government. Also, sentence was worded strangely)"
The government was "L"iberal, though arguably not "l"iberal in the classical liberal sense. The Liberal Party formed the government and introduced the new flag. The debate at the time was contentious and partisan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Regulas (talk)
Information...
I have talked with Ed Poor...I still have no idea how to find and undo without some information! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 20:25, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
Was it an error?
I did not compare you to Al Gore. I compared the supposed error about 90/10 to an error that Al Gore made. Your reply violates our guidelines, as expressed at Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks. I only mention this because it seems like you are trying to accuse me of violating a rule which you - not me - actually violated.
But I don't think that's what you meant to do. You may clarify if you wish. --Ed Poor Talk 11:39, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
