User talk:Ilikebigbibles

Excuse me, but that statement you removed was not offensive. It was made at a time when the article was a load of nonsense. Look at the history. --Horace 01:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

• Ah, right. my apologies, i thought you were just making trouble. Have a nice day. Ilikebigbibles 01:56, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Please do not vandalize articles by changing factual information (like New Jersey to New Hampshire). MountainDew 02:30, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

• Please do not accuse me of vandalism unnecessarily. That was not factual information, it was just an example of a state. And i decided to replace New Jersey with New Hampshire, because it is a more conservative, and therefore better state. If you feel that the article would be more beneficial with NJ, feel free to change it back. Ilikebigbibles 02:32, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
• Ah, I thought that was an actual legal brief. Okay. MountainDew 02:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

I like the KJV [1] too, though I suspect mine isn't as big as yours.

JC 09:35, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

lol! good reference site btw, cheers. Ilikebigbibles 09:40, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Your contributions seem sloppy and aimless. I'm thinking of reverting them all. Please explain what you are doing here. --Ed Poor 10:03, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

• Please stop inserting red blocks with misspelled word and 'dig' about conservative POV, pending an explanation. --Ed Poor 10:05, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Well I have to admit Ed, I'm slightly offended that you think my contributions are sloppy and aimless, but thanks for bringing it to my attention. Perhaps you would like to go into a bit more detail and suggest potential areas for improvement? I'm currently working on a template called Template:vandalcandidate, which should serve as a useful template to put on controvertial articles, to warn readers that the article at any given time is not necessarily representative of the conservative position, due to the relentless vandals that some of the more controvertial articles on this site seem to attract. Ilikebigbibles 10:08, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Spelling, for a start. [2] Are you a student, or what? If you are a student, comments from 'the teacher' should not offend you; you ought to welcome them. And please fix my spelling errors, too! :-) --Ed Poor 10:16, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

The conservative position

I'm not sure the goal of this project is to present only the conservative position on any topic. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the purpose of each article to present "trustworthy" information? I think this would include mentioning other viewpoints than conservative ones on certain topics.

Many topics are controversial, with a sharp split between liberal and conservative POV. I think the Schlaflys want both sides of controversies mentioned. Pending a confirmation that they do not, please:

1. do not add your template using the subst: keyword Edit: Roger. Ilikebigbibles 10:41, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
2. do check your idea of policy with User:Aschlafly or any other senior admin. Edit: Done. Ilikebigbibles 10:41, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

These are my detailed suggestions. --Ed Poor 10:23, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Warning

Stop all other work and answer my questions, or I will suspend your editing privileges temporarily. --Ed Poor 10:33, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

• Relax. Thats a big 'roger' on points 1 and 2 above - and yes i'm a student. Thankyou, oh teacher, for teaching me the ways of the wise. Ilikebigbibles 10:36, 27 March 2007 (EDT)