Difference between revisions of "User talk:MikeR"
m (→Reversion) |
m (→Reversion) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
Keep the comments on [[Talk:PNAS Response to Letter]] substantive, don't claim special expertise for yourself, and avoid personal attacks ... or it will unfortunately become necessary to block your account.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:31, 15 September 2008 (EDT) | Keep the comments on [[Talk:PNAS Response to Letter]] substantive, don't claim special expertise for yourself, and avoid personal attacks ... or it will unfortunately become necessary to block your account.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:31, 15 September 2008 (EDT) | ||
| − | :Of course, if one claims to have reviewed scientific or engineering papers in the past, that | + | :Of course, if one claims to have reviewed scientific or engineering papers in the past, then that seems to be OK, at least for some editors.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 14:26, 15 September 2008 (EDT) |
Revision as of 18:27, September 15, 2008
Welcome!
Hello, MikeR, 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, MikeR!
Croeso, Meic! Bugler 17:56, 19 July 2008 (EDT)
Many thanks, Bugler :) MikeR 19:29, 19 July 2008 (EDT)
Libellous accusations
Do you think it clever to try and spread malicious lies about me? Have your 'friends' sent you here to do that, and to try and disrupt this work? If you believe it to be true, then I suggest you communicate your beliefs to Mr Schlafly, or to senior sysops, and good luck to you. Bugler 05:16, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
Reversion
Keep the comments on Talk:PNAS Response to Letter substantive, don't claim special expertise for yourself, and avoid personal attacks ... or it will unfortunately become necessary to block your account.--Aschlafly 09:31, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
- Of course, if one claims to have reviewed scientific or engineering papers in the past, then that seems to be OK, at least for some editors.--Argon 14:26, 15 September 2008 (EDT)