User talk:Leffingwell
Welcome!
Hello, Leffingwell, and welcome to Conservapedia!
We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you edit.
At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page. Any questions--ask!
Thanks for reading, Leffingwell!
Warren G. Harding
Why did you remove this large part of the Warren G. Harding article? Normally you should discuss such serious changes in the article's talk page, and I see not edits from you. Without such an explanation, you stand a likely chance of getting blocked as a vandal and having all your work rolled back. Please explain yourself. --Crocoite 03:19, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
Well, I meant no harm. If there is a formal process of submitting edits to a committee for review and approval, I don't know about it, and would be glad to see those rules if you could point me in the right direction. My changes were based on scholarly research of an accredited researcher backed by my own fact checking (which was not to the level of thoroughness I would probably like but I am an amateur here, as I assume we all were). Is there any actual objection to the substance of what I wrote, or is this only about process? Leffingwell 16:52, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
- It's about the process. In the Editing etiquette article (linked above), are these pertinent comments:
- You explain your edits. This can be done in an edit comment (Summary edit field) or on the article's talk page. In the latter case, putting "See talk" in the edit comment will alert other editors to the fact that you have discussed your edit on the talk page.
- Etiquette rule:
- Favour improving another person's edits rather than deleting them.
- If you think that the edit really should come out, explain why in the edit comment or on the talk page. If your reasons are good enough, chances are the first editor will see your point and accept his change being removed.
- If you question other editor's facts, then instead of just deleting them, put a {{fact}} tag after the claimed fact, to give him an opportunity to support his edit. If the original editor fails to support his fact in a reasonable time (e.g. a week), then you have better justification for removing his "fact".
- Please review the links above and I think you will do fine. --Crocoite 17:10, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, I will as soon as I get time. Am adding comments on talk to the Harding article.Leffingwell 18:51, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
CO confusion
Leffingwell, I am glad you asked me this. Last schoolyear, I wrote a paper on York and translated it into a Conservapedia article. I also watched the movie, "Sergeant York", so I think I can answer this. He DID file as a conscientious objector, but his request was denied because his church was not recognized as a religious organization by the United States government. He never changed his mind while his request was being made. Later, however, his superior officers convinced him that some killing is justifiable. That is where some people believe he changed his mind. York said after his heroics that he saw all of his fellow soldiers being killed and that was what pushed him to stop the German machine gunners.
So, it could be interpreted that he changed his mind, but I don't believe, from what I have read, that York ever liked war or applauded the killing associated with it. He only took lives to save lives. Hope that answers your question Leffingwell!!! --◄ Ďāʋĭđ Ŕ ► 13:59, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
Jane Austen
Good catch here. --Ed Poor Talk 10:29, 16 December 2008 (EST)
