Difference between revisions of "User talk:NathanBickel"
NathanBickel (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
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) | ||
Revision as of 02:52, February 3, 2010
Welcome!
Hello, NathanBickel, 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, NathanBickel!
Note:
If you desire to contact me -- please utilize the following linked form: http://moralmatters.org/ContactUs.html
"Abortion genocide" article
Nathan--your "Abortion genocide" article has some serious flaws re: formatting. Could I please ask you to format the article--especially the references--in a manner similar to the rest of the articles on the site? Many thanks. AlexWD 22:27, 20 January 2010 (EST)
AlexWD -- Yes. No problem, My time was limited today and I will work at it. I realized that it did not turn out the way I had wished, as my main focus was to get registered and get something going. I'll have to spend more time here in Conservapedia and locate how to conform my article to the formatting standards. Please be patient. Thank you.
AlexWD -- Thank you [or, whomever] formatted the "Abortion genocide" material that I didn't get around to formatting according to Conservapedia's standards. It looks great!
I have something to add later on that expands the definition of the genocide aspect. [It's the "Posterity" angle] I'll work on it and submit it [hopefully] next week.
Thank you. Rev. Nathan Bickel
- Please figure out how to format--follow the coding that's already there. Thanks. AlexWD 14:58, 25 January 2010 (EST)
Thx Alex for doing it for me.
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? JacobB 21:52, 2 February 2010 (EST)