Changes

: You also added superfluous detail unsuitable for a concise entry.  Note that being concise is one of our main goals. Then you praised Wikipedia for making an article about an obscure rock band "much longer."  Why would anyone want a longer article about something that is inappropriate in short version?  That change was contrary to the point being made, and contrary to one of our goals here.

: You also added superfluous detail unsuitable for a concise entry.  Note that being concise is one of our main goals. Then you praised Wikipedia for making an article about an obscure rock band "much longer."  Why would anyone want a longer article about something that is inappropriate in short version?  That change was contrary to the point being made, and contrary to one of our goals here.

: I welcome your contributions here.  We all do.  But please conform to our [[rules]].  Also, while we are all very patient, was it really necessary to launch into an attack on Conservapedia on my personal talk page?  Note that on Conservapedia, we respect users' talk pages more than Wikipedia does.  Please see [[Differences with Wikipedia]].

: I welcome your contributions here.  We all do.  But please conform to our [[rules]].  Also, while we are all very patient, was it really necessary to launch into an attack on Conservapedia on my personal talk page?  Note that on Conservapedia, we respect users' talk pages more than Wikipedia does.  Please see [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia|How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]].

: I apologize for my 24-hour delay in responding to your comments on another talk page, and hope you can reconsider your view towards Conservapedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

: I apologize for my 24-hour delay in responding to your comments on another talk page, and hope you can reconsider your view towards Conservapedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)