From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

No. You find a dictionary or something. This is one you can do yourself; or you can leave it as a testament to your pettiness. AlanE 15:27, 8 March 2013 (EST)

Changed it as testament to my great generosity and my boundless forgiveness, which is always gonna lead me to forget all the wrongs you have done to me. - Markman 15:32, 8 March 2013 (EST)
?? What are you talking about?? AlanE 15:38, 8 March 2013 (EST)
Slandering me, throwing unfounded accusation at me, etc. - Markman 15:41, 8 March 2013 (EST)

??What are you talking about?? Pretty-well everything I have said to you has been as a reaction to something you have said or done to me. And I believed what I said at the time. I even started typing an apology at one stage but it got tied up in an edit-conflict and you did something against me so I gave up on it. I would have had a chat about it but you are one of those without an email address.

I agree with those who have seen an unfactual stub or piece of parody and deleted it and replaced it with something worthy of the encyclopedia. I think that those that delete and move on or put a tag on it and move on are intellectually lazy. I have had someone say to me: "this needs references" and I don't mind that - and I give it references. It has not happened since 2008 though (I think). Everything I have typed as fact here I sincerely believe to be fact, and no amount of references can ensure it is fact unless it has been copied-and-pasted, because people misread things or see facts through the prism of their own ideologies. You go through the links and/or references of some editors and they no longer exist or they are a blog post. Are these useful citations?

You are putting me through this and plastering tags all over my edits for malicious reasons. I am quite often angry and get sarcastic but rarely am I malicious. If I am to properly reference every article you tag it will take me the rest of the year and stop me doing anything productive during that time. In other words, the encyclopedic part of Conservapedia will suffer. It seems you don't mind that happening. AlanE 16:41, 8 March 2013 (EST)

"I think that those that delete and move on or put a tag on it and move on are intellectually lazy." But I'm not only doing that; I'm planning to tag articles with {{uncited}} only once a week. The day afterward I'll actually be going through the articles in Category:Articles with unsourced statements and try to fix them. That why I'm adding the template to the articles en masse, so that once it's in the category other users will see and work on fixing it too.
Anyway I forgive you. - Markman 17:00, 8 March 2013 (EST)