Automoderated users, edit
3,552
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 23:
Line 23: + + + +
User talk:NathanBickel (view source)
Revision as of 02:52, February 3, 2010
, 02:52, February 3, 2010no edit summary
It looks great! Believe it or not.........I'm still attempting to learn the Conservapedia format. But, apparently, still not getting it. At least the material is acceptable. That's my # 1 priority -- to contribute something of worthwhile -- that Conservapedia accepts.
It looks great! Believe it or not.........I'm still attempting to learn the Conservapedia format. But, apparently, still not getting it. At least the material is acceptable. That's my # 1 priority -- to contribute something of worthwhile -- that Conservapedia accepts.
==Hate Monger==
While I see that you wish to contribute constructively, this is the second time you've written an article in a non-encyclopedic style. We try to describe things factually and honestly, not with poetic language like "unrestrained seedling plant that eventually grows to its malevolent maturity." Pick up Britannica, and read some articles, or read articles here, and then read your latest contributions. Do you see the difference? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:52, 2 February 2010 (EST)